More limited motor discussion [Archive] - Offshore Electrics Forums

dethow

02-13-2018, 10:44 AM

These motors have been run in MMEU for a season and no speed advantage was observed. The main reason to buy a motor like this is reliability. One of our members burned a couple $80 motors this season while in the same boat these motors are still going.

But yes... Darin is 100% right. The sky is not falling and based on our club's examination, there are other motors which showed some slight dominance in terms of speed. But those racers/boats have always been some of our fastest so maybe that's not even true that it was the motors.

Size limits has proven itself out to be good as far as what we've seen and what I've heard from other clubs doing some testing.
Things will continue to get tested out this year and we'll see where it goes.

But people... the only way to see if there is a problem is to explore the limits and see what happens. Please stop making assumptions just because a motor costs more. The $55 Dynamite 1500kv has been doing some domination for years if you know how to setup a boat for it.

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 11:47 AM

"you'll only get SO much copper and steel inside that can" The new catch phrase reminiscent of "The motor is the fuse".
That worked out well didn't it? Just sayin...

Watts no longer = power, and mass is over rated. Your AQ, Dynamite, Himax,and Proboat motors will still be competitive! No body needs to re tool!

^^^ Makes sense if you don't think about it.^^^

dethow

02-13-2018, 01:47 PM

I believe the Neu 1412 motors have proven themselves to NOT be a factor. Other than reliability...
And that's mostly because there is no more copper in there then there is any other current limited/spec legal motor or any other $80 motor which fits the 37mm x 62mm dimension rule being considered. The 1412 motor fits in a 55.2mm can. That’s it folks.

Now moving past the 1412… It is possible to get a Neu 1415 into a 62mm can. I have several of them in my possession. And I’ll tell you that can is stuffed with copper and weighs in at just over 290 grams. I think it has potential to be a beast. I’m not the only one who will have this motor this upcoming season. At least one other person has now placed an order with Neu.

A couple of us are reaching into our pockets to see where this rules can be pushed to and see what happens. The 1412 has already proved to be a non-factor, like I said. This season we’ll see what role a 1415 stuffed into a 62mm can holds.:popcorn2:

I’ve had this discussion with the other person getting some 1415s already. My gut says the 1415s will prove some dominance and the size rule will have to be pulled back slightly to 37mm x 60mm. This small change would still be inclusive to everything currently legal along with other $80 motors available. And even the Neu 1412 for those that want to burn a hole in their pocket for no real results.
This change would knock out the possibility of the Neu 1415, the Lehner 1940 and the Lehner 1930 with fan. The Lehner 1930 without fan is only 54mm long and will probably prove to be no threat like the Neu 1412.
I included the Lehner 1940 because without a fan its specs at 64mm long. Like the Neu 1415, someone may be able have Lehner build it at 62mm or cut it down themselves.

The only desirable motor that starts to come into question at 60mm long is the TP3630. They have been manufacturing this motor in varying lengths. You can see OSE shows specs of 61mm while TP’s own spec sheet shows them at 58mm long. I personally had some at 57.5mm long and I think I heard that some people got a some which were over 62mm long and they had to be sent back.
That’s TPs problem… They need to get there sh*t together and build their motors to their spec at 58mm long.

This is all being put out there because I truly do care about the class and the hobby. I think the Neu 1415 motor is going to close the gap between limited/spec and full P. I also think that, if they are a motor you are either going to own or chase we are going to lose new people and existing people that don’t want to spend $250 on a motor. That’s not good.
We will see how these 1415s play out with some actual testing and racing this year. But I wanted to start to lay the ground work for the thought on needing to slow down on the 37mm x 62mm dimensions.
And for those that want to cry and whine:nopity:. Please stop. There are some of us out buying these things to actually race and test. Bench talk and assumptions has gotten everyone nowhere over the past several years. If you have such a strong feeling on something that you want to attempt to hold back progress… Then go buy one and prove it.

I’d like to invite Darin to bench test one of my 1415 motors for comparison against the others he’s already done. Mike Ball is probably going to do some actual race testing with GPS and data logging this spring.

Let’s all quit the bench talk :blah:, start testing and make decisions which are smart for the class. But with that said… the individuals not spending their time and/or money need to set back, stop the crying and listen. :hide:

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 02:16 PM

Oops, all of the testing should have been done before a rule set was proposed. I guess I can have an opinion since I have time & money invested??

dethow

02-13-2018, 02:44 PM

Oops, all of the testing should have been done before a rule set was proposed. I guess I can have an opinion since I have time & money invested??

I haven't heard of any rule set put out for vote yet. That's why I said we need to put the breaks on this rule change. IOW... slow down the proposal and wait on putting it out for vote until we can see if these 1415s are going to destroy the class.

And I knew that would be taking the wrong way. Everyone's opinion matters...
The point is that assumptions have been getting us all no where. There are some who have done no testing and have already made up there mind that a dimension rule is bad. Those assumptions are not based on facts because those that have actually been doing testing are saying there been no advantages found. Thus, putting out statements like that are just an effort to hold back progress for a reason that are unknown. Darin has done bench testing and sees no obvious advantages in the motors which would be available. A couple clubs have been doing some racing and records what motors are winning. Again... No obvious advantages seen.

This 1415 issue is new information that took time to get to. After measuring and asking questions it finally became a reality that this can be done with a 1415 motor. Now we need some time to test and check the results of that.

Doug... this Neu and Lehner motor thing has been a hot topic since this motor discussion came up. Have you gotten any Neu or Lehner motors to run/test? If you have, thank you. Could you share your findings.

I apologize if I offended you Doug or anyone else. Not my intent. :sorry:
Obviously lots of people have time and money invested. Just not a lot investing into pushing the limits of the rules to see what happens when someone does that. The nay sayers of the rule should be glad that the limits are being tested and that we're not just looking at $80 motors and waiting until the rule is voted in and then a couple years down the road someone crams at 70mm motor in a 62mm can.

dethow

02-13-2018, 03:21 PM

I'd rather lose lots of money I spent on these 1415 motors then lose racers.
My $250 1415 motors are no good with no one to race against.
Our MMEU club would probably lose at least half its limited/spec class racers if there's not a chance to win without spending $250 on a motor.

Do we know that's the case yet. Absolutely NOT!
These 1415 may result in nothing. Unlikely... but you never know.

All I'm trying to do here is say... put the breaks on a vote and lets see what happens when the limits of the rule are pushed. The result MAY be that the proposed limits need to be pulled back slightly to 60mm long. I know there should be a manufacturing tolerance for the 60mm long motors but the manufactures just need to get there stuff right.
Maybe build in a 1mm tolerance at CD discretion so if a motor is built slightly large the CD can look and see its obviously a TP 3630 or a SSS 3660, it was just slightly off in manufacturing. But if someone brings an obvious 1415 or any other custom built motor that measures over 60mm... the CD can dis-allow it.

Otherwise I am a COMPLETE advocate for the new dimension rule. Just don't want to see the class destroyed for what could be a simple change before its put in the books.

T.S.Davis

02-13-2018, 03:29 PM

Your AQ, Dynamite, Himax,and Proboat motors will still be competitive! No body needs to re tool!

^^^ Makes sense if you don't think about it.^^^

I did retool actually. After testing and witnessing the testing on a bunch of motors I dumped most everything in favor of the cheepo Dynamite motors. Doesn't get hot and will out run all the Neu's I've seen thus far. In truth I would be shocked if Dave's fresh 1415's can catch Tyler with the Dynamite. I've been wrong before though. Plus Doug.........how can you retool for classes that don't exist? bazzing!

As far as the rule set I just razzed Doug about...:hornets_nest:..... this isn't going to become an organizational rule set any time soon. IMPBA wont even look at it until later this year. Likely after the nats. Then it will receive the typical one year trial run even though we already did that. So right now we're looking at maybe fall of 2019 for a vote at the very earliest. I don't know of anyone actively campaigning against it but it's just not priority and that's how it's done.

NAMBA FE will be trapped in the same sort of loop for at least another year on it too so don't hurt yer selves wringing yer hands over exactly what's what at this point. Figure out what's okay where you plan to race and run that. For MMEU and the NATS there is a size limit and that's all.

By the time either organization responds to what we need there will be some new battery that none of us ever even dreamed of to monkey up everything. It's a problem for FE with both organizations. It/they/we/the orgs (the orgs. are us remember) can't move forward as fast as the tech changes. Then analysis paralysis sets in and we wring our hands for three years.

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 04:02 PM

David, we're good, no problem here at all!

No I haven't ordered or done any Neu or Lehner motor testing for these classes. The District voted against the dimension rule for the 2018 Grand Prix series. The Spring Nats. I say bring it, and lets what happens. If I get smoked (so to speak) that will be a clue. I'll have time to make changes if it looks like I can make it up there for the Nats./ Cup.

"Plus Doug.........how can you retool for classes that don't exist"?
It's extremely easy when they don't exist! Ya just do it if ya need to!!:thumbup1:

HTVboats

02-13-2018, 04:20 PM

Just a thought for rules. Motors must be manufactured with a minimum production of 500 units and available through normal retail outlets. Insure motors can be purchased by all racers. Remember rules can be adjusted from time to time to level competition. NASCAR adapts rules every year and have become one of the most successful organizations in motorsports.
Mic

dethow

02-13-2018, 04:47 PM

In truth I would be shocked if Dave's fresh 1415's can catch Tyler with the Dynamite. I've been wrong before though.

In my hands... you are probably right. I'm not good at setting up a boat and I can't drive.

I thought the same way when these motors were on order. Once I got them in my hands, felt the weight and saw how stuffed they were. I thought of other guys that actually know what they're doing getting a hold of these motors...

dethow

02-13-2018, 05:38 PM

Just a thought for rules. Motors must be manufactured with a minimum production of 500 units and available through normal retail outlets.

How do we know how many were manufactured? And define "normal retail outlets".
Doubt 500 of the OSE Raider motors were produced. They are out??? That's not right...
And buying direct from Neu is a normal retail outlet. Anyone can buy from them...

Can't bench talk this... Need to just see what the 1415s do and figure out a way to get them out (if necessary) without over complicating things. And I think the simple way is to pull back to 37mm x 60mm. That's it... that simple.

ray schrauwen

02-13-2018, 05:57 PM

If they could make the rule 37.6mm diameter I could run my favorite $30, 2200Kv outrunner.

What's with the outrunner discrimination??? :spy: lol.... Seriously, Let me just run it once in LSH against a $200 custom motor....

PPPplease??:tongue_smilie: :hide:

This thread has caused an interesting storm of "the sky is falling" e-mails and texts.

People... "Neu" is NOT an abbreviation for "magic bullet". 37mm x 62mm... you'll only get SO much copper and steel inside that can, regardless of the label or brand.

Perhaps take a step back and RELAX. Buy your motors, get your boats setup, and learn to drive. Then your 90% of the way there.

When you get good with props, you'll start approaching that remaining 10%.

The sky is NOT falling...

HTVboats

02-13-2018, 07:21 PM

Direct from NEU and TP are retail outlets. OSE Raider is a rebadge and I am sure more than 500 Flycolor 150's were made. Moot point as ESC's not an issue. I threw out 500 as a number, could be 250 or 1000 if you rather. The idea is to eliminate custom shops or a manufacturer making a small batch of "special" units. A manufacturer or distributor could submit a production number to qualify their motor. If Castle said they made XXXX it would be reasonable. Any fudging of numbers could disqualify a manufacturer from competition. Just ideas.
Mic

Doby

02-13-2018, 07:26 PM

So what manufacturer is going to supply their actual sale numbers...its no-one's business.

Also, as it has been stated NUMEROUS times..you have to be able to drive your boat to win...no use adding unnecessary limitation that can't be verified.

HTVboats

02-13-2018, 07:33 PM

The manufacturer that wants sales and qualify for the class will be happy to submit. Were talking a number of one size unit produced not corporate profits.
Mic

Doby

02-13-2018, 07:43 PM

Because RC boats is such a huge market for the manufacturers? LOL
Its not verifiable..just adds more confusion...How would the production numbers be verified? I could say 4000, you say 1000? Just imagine the useless arguments on race day.

KISS...The Michigan bozos have it right.

Also, Dave has stated above that they run different motors in their club with no real difference...granted it is a relatively small sample size, but its the nearest data that could be quoted as fact based on actual testing.

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 07:44 PM

There is no way you are stuffing all the guts, rotor and all, of a 1415, into a 62mm can.

All the rest of this is BS Hyperbole.

I'm not even sure why Doug cares, he's been against this class format in general from the start, so nothing has changed there.

We have 35+ members in our club who have been pushing these rules in practice for more than a season, and they like it.

Others have as well and do as well.

Also, stop putting words in my typing. I NEVER said people wouldn't have to re-tool. I did, if fact, state that the performance of the class, over the next year or two, MIGHT change, but that, for the immediate future, our existing setups would remain competitive. And, guess what, I'm 100% correct.

As for the rest, this is really the ONLY reasonable and sustainable way for this class to exist. It will be literally NO different in implementation than the other classes, with the exception that there is an actual, real, physical limitation to how much power you can bring to the table.

In the next season or two, that will sort itself out and the balance will be realized.

Any other way of doing this is either a nightmare of lists, or is completely untechable.

So freaking just relax. We've got this. The sky is still up there. The class will continue to run. Racers will still be racers. And talent is going to continue to outrun money.

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 07:52 PM

"I'm not even sure why Doug cares." Really? LMAO!

Doby

02-13-2018, 07:55 PM

Doug doesn't care about anything...saw him kicking a puppy the other day!

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 08:03 PM

If it can't be teched, it can't be a rule.

It's really that simple.

Outside of what the proposal outlines, every other suggestion here may make people feel good, but they are completely unenforceable and untechable.

This is a real, measurable, enforceable limitation.

Not sure what else needs to be said.

Doby

02-13-2018, 08:10 PM

...............156949

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 08:15 PM

Oops, double post...

TRUCKPULL

02-13-2018, 08:38 PM

KISS method - Keep it simple stupid.

Diameter and Length - Lets race

Larry

dethow

02-13-2018, 08:43 PM

There is no way you are stuffing all the guts, rotor and all, of a 1415, into a 62mm can.

Hey Darin, nice to know you actually read anything I have to say. :sarcasm1:
There is a way... It's been done... I own them... they are in my boats...
And another racer, a trusted national racer placed an order today.

I have offered to send you one for bench testing... but you don't read what I have to say. :frusty:

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 08:54 PM

I've read enough to know that I don't really care either way. If it fits the dimensions, it's legal. Eventually, it may even become mainstream, common, the way everyone does it.

And it'll be tech-able, non-controversial, and simply accepted. All without pages of arguing online and without motor-lists...

dethow

02-13-2018, 09:12 PM

Darin!!!!!!!!!!! The only "F"ing thing I'm saying should be considered is pulling the dimensions back to 37mm x 60mm.

What is wrong with you man? You don't read a thing I have to say and then you just assume my issues are making things unteachable.

If you aren't worried about the Neu 1415 fitting into a 62mm can then why don't we just allow 70mm motors? There are probably many other 70mm motors with room to be cut down to 62mm.

This is seriously irresponsible that you won't even look at this motor until its to late.
Reducing the can size to 60mm will eliminate this issue. And it'll be tech-able, non-controversial, and simply accepted. All without pages of arguing online and without motor-lists...

dethow

02-13-2018, 09:16 PM

But to be honest, Darin. My offer is off the table.
You obviously have no respect for me so why would I send you one of my motors.

You say "I've read enough to know that I don't really care either way." What a joke...:cursing:

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 09:20 PM

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 09:21 PM

By "I don't care either way", I'm saying that, even if I'm wrong about the 1415x62mm deal, it doesn't change my opinion of these rules.

dethow

02-13-2018, 09:29 PM

Wait, wait, wait... what did I say or do to you to elicit that reaction? Are you against these rules? If so, then I'm confused as to what's going on here.

I've been here in full support of you being able to run and sell your motors.

Confused by this reaction.

Darin you wouldn't be confused if you'd read anything I said earlier in this thread.

I am in full support of the dimension only rules. I just think that 62mm is too long and allows enough space for larger motors to be modified and fit.
I've proven it... I'm holding one in my hand.

If the 1415 motor I will be running this year shows dominance, people who want to compete in the limited/spec classes will have to spend the $250 to compete. Or maybe become a machinist and cut down other cheaper 70mm motors.
There will be many existing and no new racers willing to spend that money, so participation will drop. Who wants to race if they have no chance at winning.
I, myself, will probably not dominate with these 1415 motors because I don't know how to set up a boat or drive as well as several other more experienced individuals.

This question will probably be answers at this years IMPBA Nats as myself and a much more experienced racer will be running these motors.

I'm just throwing it out there that the breaks should be pumps on the rule proposals until we see what these motors do.

And you apparently know it all and don't care. That's what elicited my reaction.

dethow

02-13-2018, 09:45 PM

I've been here in full support of you being able to run and sell your motors.

And BTW... I don't need your support to be ABLE to run and sell my motors. The 1412s I was selling are well within the MMEU rules being utilized at the IMPBA Nats. And MY 1415 motors (which are not for sale), also fully fit the rules. No support from you needed.

Only looking for some support to see that these classes are not destroyed. And you still say you don't care either way... even if you are wrong.
What? You don't care because you are so good at setting up a boat that you'll whip me off the pond anyway? Well what happens when someone as good as you decided to buy these 1415s? Will you care then?

dethow

02-13-2018, 09:51 PM

So sick of this discussion... We'll see what happens this year.
Just the fact that you openly don't care says your opinions on the motor rules should no longer be considered.
I don't care who you THINK you are.

:censored: Ridiculous!

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 09:52 PM

Ok are we about done here?
Keep it on the surface please sirs!

Thanks in advance

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 09:53 PM

Now your just making up things you think I think.

The 62mm length wasn't my idea. My limit was 61.3mm, based off the largest of the currently legal P-LTD motors. You know, the ones I actually tested.

On that front, we agree. But I'm not making these rules, so I'm just one voice.

As for reading EVERY word of what you wrote, I'm sorry, you are right, I didn't. I've been following this from my tiny phone screen while shuttling my kids around this evening, so yeah, I scanned, nor read, most of this.

My only point in all of this is what I've said though: rules need to be enforceable. Whether it's 37x62 or 36.2x61.3, I'll take it if it'll end these debates.

End of Line...

dethow

02-13-2018, 10:10 PM

Whether it's 37x62 or 36.2x61.3, I'll take it if it'll end these debates

That I fully agree with.
No debates needed. We'll see what happen is year with the 1415 motors.
Only point of anything here was to say pump the breaks on 37mm x 62mm.
Only change I'm proposing if these 1415 motors dominate is reducing to 37mm x 60mm.

What motor measured at 61.3mm?
My 1415s measure 61.5mm. I could probably sand an extra 0.2mm off to fit that if we absolutely can't go any smaller then 61.3mm.
And that's not good.... or MAY not be good. We'll see.

I have these motors... and I'll be at a lose if they get knocked off. But as I've said to several, the hobby and this race class is more important then MY wallet.
I don't want to see the gap between limited/spec and full P closed. And I don't want newbies with off the shelf boats or those with limited funds unable to compete.

Yes... Doug. I'm done. Sorry to all.
Just gets frustrating when I spend time writing out what I've found and what problem may come from that. And a big voice in the matter says he just doesn't care either way without even reading what was said.

Doug Smock

02-13-2018, 10:20 PM

I get it David. Sure do!

Time to give it a rest. We'll talk about it at the end of the year like we have for the last 9 or so.lol

We can't loose sight that at the end of the day we are grown men, having fun, racing TOY BOATS for bowling trophies. :thumbup1:

Did you get my address so you can send me a 1415 for the Spring Nats??:laugh:

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 10:26 PM

Looking through my original suggestions, I think the limits I proposed were actually 36.3 x 61.2mm.

And my "I don't really cares" are simply my response to all of this. I'm tired of the discussion and arguments, and just want this settled. I've invested a LOT financially and in life energy testing and providing data, and am ready for this to be settled.

I think you'd have to be a fool to think that i, of all people, really "don't care". If getting an actual proposal out there that the majority can agree with means giving up my fight for 36.3 x 61.2mm, and I have to settle on what is proposed, then I guess it's more precise to say that I don't care to FIGHT about it any more. Just needs to be settled.

dethow

02-13-2018, 10:28 PM

Will do, Doug...
I've done what I intended. Provided a warning of what's possible within the proposed rules.
Racing toy boats for many unwilling to spend the $$$ will become less fun. Constant losing is no fun and participation will go down.

Enough talk, we'll see what this season brings.
Nothing is for sure. Just saying pump the breaks.

dethow

02-13-2018, 10:34 PM

I think the limits I proposed were actually 36.3 x 61.2mm.

Can I ask what motor drove the 61.2mm or 61.3mm limit thought?
None of the motors I looked at specs for or personally measured were over 60mm. Most were in the 55 to 58mm range.

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 10:38 PM

I'll have to go back and look, but I think it was the 2000KV Dynamite.

Darin Jordan

02-13-2018, 10:39 PM

Keep in mind, these were ACTUAL measurements. Not advertised, which I found to be less than accurate.

dethow

02-13-2018, 10:53 PM

Agreed. There are many variations to what the manufactures specs say and what they deliver.
Example being TP3630. Their spec says 58mm, OSE website says 61mm, I had several at 57.5mm and I heard there were some floating around which were over 62mm long.

And that's why I wrote earlier that we should go 60mm long but allow some sort of CD discretion to allow obvious well know motors which had a minor manufacturing difference. I don't think we should open the door to a 1415 sized motor to accommodate manufactures who can't get their sh*t together and build a consistent size that meets their own published specs.

raptor347

02-13-2018, 11:26 PM

Just to throw fuel on the fire. There will be a significant performance advantage to the 1415 and shortened tp3640. That P hydro I ran at the 2014 nats was running a 2400kV 1415, and we remember how that ended up.

I measured the bits and pieces. A 1415 and a TP3640 can be made to fit the dimensions. Let the arms race begin.

One advantage to the 1415 and 3640 motors, they are seriously robust. Going to need a real 200 amp esc (think 200 continuous) to get the most out of them.

dethow

02-13-2018, 11:41 PM

I measured the bits and pieces. A 1415 and a TP3640 can be made to fit the dimensions.

Hey Brian, thanks for adding your experience on the subject.

I know nothing of the TP3640. Do you think that and/or the 1415 could be made to fit a 60mm can?

From what I see out of the 1415s I have in hand... they are jammed at the rear end. Maybe a little room up front to move everything more forward, but I don't know. I'm not a motor builder or machinist. I just asked the question of a manufacture and they pulled it off.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 12:38 AM

Went out a measured.

The existing motors all fit under 60mm.

I believe the 61.2 was for 1 version of the DYNAMITE 2000, and also to fit the TP3630-1950 that Wisconsin was using.

raptor347

02-14-2018, 12:47 AM

The 3640 won't fit in a 60mm can. 1515 maybe, you'd might have to sacrifice some copper to shorten up the end windings. Neu is a master of maxing out what can be stuffed in a limited space.

Keeping parity in Spec classes is never easy to pull off.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 01:05 AM

Should be noted that the 1 version of Dynamite 2000 is no longer made, and was never on the list anyhow.

jaike5

02-14-2018, 08:09 AM

Well that was uptight .... lets move on to something else like the rocket powered ejector seat on the drivers stand for Ray, just a heads up for Darin who will be pitting for Ray!!
Cheers, Jay.

photohoward1

02-14-2018, 08:18 AM

How about we all concentrate on building better boats and specifically driving better. Motors don't win races.

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 08:54 AM

Dave, I think Darin is actually sharing with people that don't get it. Dims......done. He and I both get hand wringing texts and such from outside of this thread. I've even gotten the typical "Did you read the rules before going IMPBA?!?! Maybe you shoulda before hand. What gives you the right? Why wasn't I consulted?" Not all at once of course and not from a single source. Same kind of thing we got back in 2002 with NAMBA. Then it was "who do you think you are?" Can be frustrating.

Along that line, I just gotta share a text I got on this from I guy I think of as a legend. He was a legend before I owned a decent boat IMO. Not naming him. He reads but isn't willing to debate on here. Sometimes I get the funniest damned texts from him. "I could give everybody in your Club a 1415 and the same guys are still going to win. 1415 isn't going to make a so-so driver a winner"

Hitting a start, holding a line, staying out of wash, recognizing when to let off the trigger because yer out of shape, not putting yourself in harms way, setting a guy up to pass him coming out of 4 on the last lap, not letting a guy set you up to BE passed coming out of 4. Motor can't do any of that for us.

Like I said, none of this is going to be etched in stone any time soon. We have time to find out if we blew it. I don't think we have BTW.

Okay, now Todd said something to me Sunday that cracked me up. "A peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss" Racers will get it.

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 08:58 AM

BTW Until Steve starts building a good 6 pole motor it wont matter how big it is.

longballlumber

02-14-2018, 09:11 AM

I would like to collect some weight data associated to the 37X62 motor limits. Anyone willing to weigh the motors they have (minus cooling jacket and collet) would be appreciated. The following is what I would be looking for;

Manufacturer
Model and KV
Actual Measured Weight noting if the value includes connectors or not

The more data points the better even if it’s the exact same motor multiple times.

In an effort to keep this thread clean, please send me a PM with this information.

Thanks
Mike

rayzerdesigns

02-14-2018, 09:11 AM

rayzerdesigns

02-14-2018, 09:12 AM

Hey Brian, thanks for adding your experience on the subject.

I know nothing of the TP3640. Do you think that and/or the 1415 could be made to fit a 60mm can?

From what I see out of the 1415s I have in hand... they are jammed at the rear end. Maybe a little room up front to move everything more forward, but I don't know. I'm not a motor builder or machinist. I just asked the question of a manufacture and they pulled it off.
There are already 1415s out there that have been made and are being used just so u knoe

dethow

02-14-2018, 09:39 AM

"I could give everybody in your Club a 1415 and the same guys are still going to win. 1415 isn't going to make a so-so driver a winner"

Don't disagree with that at all Terry.

Problem with the statement thou is that no one is just going to hand EVERYBODY in our club a 1415 motor to race. There will be 3 or 4 guys willing to spend the money and the rest will stop racing if they can't compete. Besides the fact that there will no longer be any off the shelf boats with a motor to compete with a 1415. You've now lost many existing racers and forget getting anyone new getting involved. Is that where we want to go?

I really don't get the big deal being made here. You and Darin have been fighting this like I'm proposing that the idea of dims just be completely taken off the table. That's not the case. I'm only suggesting that IF these 1415s turn out then we should pull the dims back to 37mm x 60mm.

From what Brian Buass says these 1415s are robust motors which he has used and won with in full P at 2014 Nationals. Sounds like something to be concerned about, coming from a well respected racer.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 10:10 AM

David, after yesterday, and my IMs to you, I think you should be clear on my position here and what I was trying to relay. I think it also should be clear now that we basically agree regarding the proposed dimensions.

It's clear that 62mm takes things too far, or at least "out of the intended scope" of the class.

The reason we determined 60mm may not work is because there simply aren't many motors out there, OTHER than the current spec motors, that fit.

The ones that did were the 36x50 sized, which are a substantial DECREASE in performance.

Motors like the TP3630-1950 were all slightly over the 60mm.

So where do you draw that line? I measured, I recommended, I tried. Two big clubs, lots of ideas, compromises were had, here we are.

Where do we go now? The proposal is already in the NAMBA pipeline, but can be pulled. Probably wise at this point. Perhaps hit the brakes at take another look? Won't affect the clubs. They can continue to run what the want. Probably better to do that than to blow the class out of scope.

Heard suggestions to add a weight component. Uuugh... back to awkward, difficult and impractical to tech rules. Dimensions are enough, I'd think, if they are the right ones. Seems we're just discussing a few tenths of mm here. I'll bet we can refine it and get it right.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 10:14 AM

In an effort to keep this thread clean, please send me a PM with this information.

Thanks
Mike

When I'm back at my computer, Mike, I'll send you the table I put together with all the tested motors. I'm sure I have it buried in my files somewhere.

photohoward1

02-14-2018, 10:29 AM

From what Brian Buass says these 1415s are robust motors which he has used and won with in full P at 2014 Nationals. Sounds like something to be concerned about, coming from a well respected racer.

Brian could win with any one of the motors. His driving skills and PROP skills are what separate him from the rest.

This is a dumb argument that has been beaten to death. I won P Spec Cat last year in Michigan with a Geico cat and a TP 3630. It wasn't the motor, it was my driving and a bit of luck.

ray schrauwen

02-14-2018, 11:02 AM

When I'm back at my computer, Mike, I'll send you the table I put together with all the tested motors. I'm sure I have it buried in my files somewhere.

Again I thank you for all that hard work letting us know what are/were the most efficient motors going. :rockon2:

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 11:14 AM

Brian will beat you in a turn. Not with a motor. It's like running with Twaits or Newland. You need about 8mph extra to get around the outside of them.

dethow

02-14-2018, 11:15 AM

This is going to throw so much fuel on this fire and piss off a couple people, but I think this fixes everything.

Any motor with maximum measurements of 37mm diameter x 62mm long which are currently or have ever been utilized in an off the shelf ‘RTR’ or ‘ARTR’ boat which fit the boat size limits of the class.
i.)The motor should be unmodified except for flat spot on shaft, method of water cooling and method of connection to the esc.
ii.) Any service or repairs necessary should be completed with OEM replacement parts. If OEM parts are unavailable, motor should be replaced.

This will allow all past, current and future offerings from off the shelf boats. If a manufacture like AQ falls of the face of the earth another will take its place. Three years ago we didn’t have Promarine. I think that if this rule was implemented now, the Proboat/Dynamite motor from the UL-19 and the Promarine/SSS motor offered in several of their boats would be the most popular choices. Along with the Dynamite 1500kv of course.

If and when something new comes out, that may become the choice. But these motors out of RTR boats are not currently ridiculously priced at $80+/-, and they will grow with inflation. We can fix in price limits without having to set a number. IOW… ten years from now a motor in a RTR boat may cost $150. The rule will still allow those motors without alteration.

We won’t have TP, Leopard, Raider, Turnigy, Neu, or Lehner in the mix unless someone starts putting them in RTR boats. Don't see anyone putting Neu or Lehner in RTR boats, but if the others are ever added it just makes things better and offers more choice.
We will have a lot more options then we have now and those options will change over time with technology and manufactures changes.

With that... I think I'm done of the subject. I've said my piece and now the powers that be can figure out whats best for the organizations and class. Sorry for throwing a monkey wrench is all this, but if I didn't do this now someone would have done it eventually. ie... stuffed as much copper as possible in a 62mm can.

longballlumber

02-14-2018, 11:15 AM

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 11:17 AM

I have one in the box at the house.

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 11:20 AM

ii.) Any service or repairs necessary should be completed with OEM replacement parts. If OEM parts are unavailable, motor should be replaced.[/B]

Prove it how? Does a tech look at the bearings and then call Proboat on race day to find out if the bearing are still available?

Simpler is better.

TRUCKPULL

02-14-2018, 11:25 AM

Motors like the TP3630-1950 were all slightly over the 60mm.

Darin
I have a new never used TP3630-1950 sitting here that I just measured - 57.7mm long

Larry

dethow

02-14-2018, 11:27 AM

Prove it how? Does a tech look at the bearings and then call Proboat on race day to find out if the bearing are still available?

Simpler is better.

Same honor system we currently operate under.
May someone cheat? Yes.
Just like people may currently be cheating.
Are those people dominating currently because of bearings? Probably not.

Will we know if someone cheats, no. But we can deter using non OEM parts by having the verbiage in the rules.

Simple is not better. Simple is going to allow motors in that you will either own or chase and no RTR boat with stock motor will be able to compete.
Again... I don't know what these 1415 motors are going to do. I'm basing that statement on Brian Buaas's opinion of the motors.

dethow

02-14-2018, 11:29 AM

Darin
I have a new never used TP3630-1950 sitting here that I just measured - 57.7mm long

Larry

Yes, same here Larry.
TP has made these motors in many varying lengths.

dethow

02-14-2018, 11:36 AM

Does anyone have one of these 2000kv Dynamite's they can weigh without the cooling jacket. The published weight seems heavy for only 56mm long

https://www.horizonhobby.com/3650-6-pole-marine-motor-2000kv-dynm3831

Thanks
Mike

The one I have weighs 252 grams without the jacket but with the stock 5.5 connectors still on.
Mine is 56.2mm long.

And so everyone knows.. I've already given Mike all the data I put into a spread sheet on many motors. I hadn't weighed and measured my Dynamite motor until now.

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 11:47 AM

A Promarine Phantom was lapping my one of a kind, wire drive, carbon fiber, Pursuit all season. I ran 4 different motors I think. Chris still beat my by over 1000 points. It was not close.

Ty finished 1450 points ahead of the Neu powered LSH with a hodge podge of motors. Once we stopped experimenting and stuck with one cheep motor he was tough to catch.

I think yer getting ahead of yourself Dave. Just a tic. Not get'n on ya. Honest. Put the 1415 on the water and race it. See where we're at. If something needs to happen it will be clear. It's premature to assume it will dominate. We thought the same thing with the 1412's Kevin was running. Didn't happen. Respectable and long lasting? Yep. Fer sure. Todd put a Lehner in his 10th scale. Didn't win either.

BTW There aren't many guys that are going to buy an RTR and be very competitive. Not because the boat can't keep up necessarily. Because there's a learning curve. The point is to get them out there. Chris did well with his RTR but that guy really can drive.

fweasel

02-14-2018, 11:47 AM

Can I make an observation as a complete organized racing novice: This has got to suck the life out of this hobby for so many.

I would love to be involved in racing, but it's not readily available near me. If I were involved, this stuff, while probably unavoidable, just throws a big wet blanket on my enthusiasm level, and I would imagine others. I feel for those trying to make headway and the countless opposition they must face for every small move, good or bad. Good effing luck boys.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 11:52 AM

Reliving this conversation again is sucking my desire to race this class right out of me. It's part if why I said screw it and just took last season off. Is it ever going to be resolved?

With David's suggestion, we're right back at what we were trying to avoid: untechable, convaluted rules with lots of gray area and are impossible to ever truly enforce.

There is no need for all that. The right physical size restriction and this discussion never takes place again.

If 37mm x 62mm isn't it, then let's figure out what is, move forward, and go racing.

I still contend that, based on previous data, 36.3mm x 61.2mm is in the ballpark. If 61mm or 60.5 or ??? Is more reasonable ( meaning there are actually motors available that equate in performance and fit that size ), then good, let's go with that.

It should be noted that, even given their slightly longer lengths, the 4-Pole motors still didn't outperform the P-LTD 6-pole motors during bench tests. They got warmer under the same loads.

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 11:57 AM

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 12:02 PM

Of course like with anything, you have "that guy" but they are few.:thumbup1:

Snickering.... ;-)

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 12:06 PM

Again... I don't know what these 1415 motors are going to do. I'm basing that statement on Brian Buaas's opinion of the motors.

That's a pretty fair opinion to consider. In talking with him last night, the potential was pretty clear.

dethow

02-14-2018, 12:13 PM

Put the 1415 on the water and race it. See where we're at. If something needs to happen it will be clear. It's premature to assume it will dominate. We thought the same thing with the 1412's Kevin was running. Didn't happen. Respectable and long lasting? Yep. Fer sure. Todd put a Lehner in his 10th scale. Didn't win either.

Agreed on needing to get it one the water and see what happens. No argument there. My discussion here was in no way meant to try and bench talk this into a change. It was simply to say we may have an issue here and we need to pump the brakes on the proposals. The opinion comes from actually holding this motor, feeling its weight and seeing how jam packed that 62mm can is.

I never got the feeling from the 1412s that it was going to dominate anything once I had it in my possession. When I ordered them I was getty and thought they would be a big deal. Once I had them in my hands and saw there was no more copper/rotor in them and only weighed 242 grams... I knew they would probably be reliable but not dominate anything.

You can ask Kevin, I was already talking about the possibility of the 1415s at last years winter meetings, while ice was on the ponds and the 1412s had not been in a boat yet.

Bottom line we'll see what happens. I just have a gut feeling which I didn't have about the 1412s and that feeling has been somewhat confirmed by Brian Buaas's experience with the motor. The 1415 motor is basically equal to other 70mm motors. Don't think it takes rocket science to figure out that it will most likely out preform 60mm motors.
And again... yes its all about driving being able to set up a boat. You may not be worried about me catching Tyler's boat. That extra mm in length isn't going to be enough for ME to catch him. You are probably right... don't deny that. But what if Mike Ball, Ken Haines, Brian Buaas, Darin Jordan, or many others have these motors? Then what? Or lets say we put this 1415 in Tyler's boat. Why should someone like me or many others in our club bother racing? We'll never win unless we buy the same motor and still pray he makes a mistake.

longballlumber

02-14-2018, 12:38 PM

The one I have weighs 252 grams without the jacket but with the stock 5.5 connectors still on.
Mine is 56.2mm long.

And so everyone knows.. I've already given Mike all the data I put into a spread sheet on many motors. I hadn't weighed and measured my Dynamite motor until now.

Thanks Dave, that is right in the ball park of what I would have expected.

TRUCKPULL

02-14-2018, 12:47 PM

What if - What if - What if

Lets race with what we got , see how it goes. and go from there.
If there is a big problem we know to fix it.

Larry

Ken Haines

02-14-2018, 12:54 PM

Ryan this is the quote of the week that came in a chain of emails. "Forums, the best and worst thing to ever happen to model boat racing." It rings true at times, gas, nitro, and FE.

But I need to tell you that beyond the forums at race sites all over the country you will never find a better group of guys. Of course like with anything, you have "that guy" but they are few.:thumbup1:

I have been quietly reading these posts and think they are good and may solve any slight imperfections that may have been overlooked. Since talking
to Dave Howarth and others by phone I believe this is getting addressed and looked at properly and encourage the continued rational discussions.

Yes.....and totally agree with Doug's attached Quote:
" But I need to tell you that beyond the forums at race sites all over the country you will never find a better group of guys"

dethow

02-14-2018, 12:58 PM

With David's suggestion, we're right back at what we were trying to avoid: untechable, convaluted rules with lots of gray area and are impossible to ever truly enforce.

Don't think we'd be that far from where we are currently in p-limited rules... except we'd be opening the motor options up more. Wasn't that the original goal? To get MORE options? I don't think we need to necessarily write a rule that provides ALL options.

We'd be leaving it open enough to grow with manufactures and inflation. And we'd be keeping it closed enough to not allow overly dominant and/or expensive motors in the mix.

I personally don't see how its untechable... We know if a motor has been put in a RTR boat.
The rule would be no more convalated then now. Only difference is that instead of having a static list we let the list grow and shrink on its own. If a popular motor becomes unavailable; another will take its place. They always do. There would be no more gray areas and things that are impossible to enforce than we have now.

Cheaters are going to cheat. An effort to write such a simple/open rule that makes is less likely to need to cheat, only opens the door to dominant motors that would be legal. IOW, it sounds like we’re trying to stop cheating by just letting everyone do whatever they want within the dimensions. Problem is that method is going to cut out newbies and RTR options.

As I thought more about this… I thought, okay we pull back to 60mm. Now someone calls Neu and says, can you put a little less copper/steel in a 1415 and fit into a 60mm can? Maybe they develop a new motor called the 1414. It will have the 60mm can stuffed, weight 285 grams and costs $250. This again will create a situation where you either own it or chase it. Put that motor in Tyler Davis’s boat and a UL-19 will not complete, no matter who set it up and is driving it. That’s not right.

Or worse yet... someone builds that crammed 60mm motor themselves and its not available for anyone else to purchase. With simple/easy dimension limits only, there is no rule being broke. That person builds a few of these, gives then to his club people and they all go to a nats event and dominate.
What ifs... What ifs... I know.
But a simple rules makes that possible. That's not right.

T.S.Davis

02-14-2018, 12:59 PM

I didn't a little research. We've been unable to move forward on limited motors and have been talking about it extensively since 2014.

.......analysis paralysis.

dethow

02-14-2018, 01:15 PM

Any motor with maximum measurements of 37mm diameter x 62mm long which are currently or have ever been utilized in an off the shelf ‘RTR’ or ‘ARTR’ boat which fit the boat size limits of the class.
i.)The motor should be unmodified except for flat spot on shaft, method of water cooling and method of connection to the esc.
ii.) Any service or repairs necessary should be completed with OEM replacement parts. If OEM parts are unavailable, motor should be replaced.

Doesn't fix everything but fixes the need for MORE options and doesn't allow things to be so open that the class gets destroyed by people LEGALLY pushing the limits of the simple dimensions rule.

Terry,
Your Dynamite 2000kv motor would be in.
Tom's Dynamite 1500kv motor would be in.
Chris's SSS 2030kv motor would be in.
All other previously utilized p-limited motors would be in.
Past, Current and Future RTR boats that fit the boat and motor size limits will be able to hit the water without having to change out a motor.

Only other $80 motors being blocked out have proven to be no more dependable or competitive then the ones listed above. So why do we NEED those as choices?

And we'd get rid of the Neu and/or Lehner options which are being perceived by many as a threat to the class. Right or wrong that perception exists and there is resistance. Even if we find a way to cut out the 1415, I guarantee someone will be butt hurt when a Neu 1412 beats them. Won't be the motor... we both know that. But some will not hear that and will think they only got beat because 'so' and 'so' spent $200 on a motor that shouldn't be allowed.

Ken Haines

02-14-2018, 03:24 PM

Steven Vaccaro

02-14-2018, 03:26 PM

Can someone tell me why 62mm? And not the specs of the original limited motors?

If we stayed within those old constraints, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions.

dethow

02-14-2018, 03:40 PM

I liked where Dave was headed with the possibility of a 37 x 60mm revision or something like that on the rule......makes sense to me,
however not so kean on this last idea of them having to be available or sold otherwise as models in RTR boats.
Seems a little too restrictive to me. I love the Neu motors, but do agreed that the Neu 1415's may rock the boat.
Just my 2 cents

I can understand the point of view...

But I feel my idea would be less restrictive then the small motor list we've had for years. And we already have many classes which are less restrictive.
I thought the point of a limited/spec class is to restrict, and create some parity with low cost options.
I think simple size rules are opening things too much and as Brian Buass said "Let the arms race begin".

Do we get the Neu 1412s? No...
Do we get the TP3630s? No...
But we would get a lot more options then we currently have.
So we'd be somewhere in the middle. Less restrictive then current but not so open that creative use of the rule screws up the class.

dethow

02-14-2018, 03:45 PM

Can someone tell me why 62mm? And not the specs of the original limited motors?

If we stayed within those old constraints, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions.

Going with 36.3mm x 56.0mm size constraints wouldn't really add many other options. Based on things I've seen the only motors that would add is the SSS 3656 and my cut down Neu 1412s. Several other good options don't necessary have any more copper/steel in the can they are just putting them in slightly longer cans in the 58mm to 61mm range.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 04:07 PM

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 04:35 PM

Can someone tell me why 62mm? And not the specs of the original limited motors?

If we stayed within those old constraints, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions.

I don't have a "politically correct" answer for that but I can tell you without a doubt that those motors still work for a successful P Limited racing program.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 05:58 PM

I don't have a "politically correct" answer for that but I can tell you without a doubt that those motors still work for a successful P Limited racing program.

Yup.. BUT, how many of the originally listed motors are still in Production? I can tell you first hand that the part numbers for the Dynamite motors are the ONLY thing that's the same.

Need to dump the lists, part numbers, and extraneous nonsense, and simplify the allowance to be inclusive, but sufficiently restrictive.

In my humble opinion, anyhow. :beerchug:

Greg Schweers

02-14-2018, 06:12 PM

This rule change would only affect the Nationals. Even if you had a 1415 at the Nationals, it doesn't mean anything. Dave Newland has proven several times that consistency wins way more races. Let's say Darin shows up at our club race with a 1415, and he laps everybody. At the end of the day, we'd have a vote, and that motor wouldn't be allowed - simple. When people think this motor will drive away racers, they're not thinking - you can do whatever you want at club level. If I did go to the nationals, I would have 2 or 3 1415s, because I can't do the consistency thing. It bugs the crap out of me if someone has a faster boat than mine.

robstercraws

02-14-2018, 06:43 PM

All this talk makes our club look extremely laid back. We allow anyone to race any boat, as long as it fits the basic hull design and even at that we bend to accommodate, cats and monos to run together. Heck there is a kid building a JAE 33 and we’re gonna let him run 6s with the p-spec 4s guys and no one cares. I guess my point is that we like to let everyone play and winning isn’t what draws new members. Our club has grown significantly in the past few years because of this. Guys up north come down and run with us because it’s a fun place to play and race. Winning isn’t everything. These are just toys and it’s just a hobby and this is just my opinion.:buttrock:

Rookieboater

02-14-2018, 07:12 PM

The smart thing would to let the Board of Directors (in NAMBA) make changes to the motor list based on the existing rules rather than it be a membership vote. They could discuss it and inspect any new motors wanting to make the list and vote it in. The could consult some smart people and get all the info needed. Vote in a new motor and put it on the list. The BOD could do it once a year and we could have a new motor list each and every year based on our current rules.
I understand wanting to make sure we have "motors' available but our most popular form of power in NAMBA is GAS and it is based on one motor manufacture. The most popular stock class is based off one motor manufacture. Our most popular nitro OPC class is based off of one motor. Most popular electric classes are based off a few motors and yet here we are discussing the option of opening it up. I don't see this going well.
Its true that the same guys will eventually rise to the top and that one new hot motor will eventually be in the hands of everyone, but at what cost? A new motor $250.00, a new speed control to harness all that power $250.00 dollars, a new prop to handle all that power, $50.00. and what have we really accomplished..................

Im lucky, if I get tired and frustrated with a new rule I can just move on to a different class and a different power plant. I race all three disciplines. but for some the price of spec will probably increase too much. BTW the best way to increase participation is to have spec classes that are affordable.

Just a simple mans opinion.

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 07:13 PM

Need to dump the lists, part numbers, and extraneous nonsense, and simplify the allowance to be inclusive, but sufficiently restrictive.

And we will when we need to. Everyone was happy at the end of last season in our GP Series and wanted to continue to dance with the lady that brought them. When they see a change is needed they'll look for a new dance partner.:wink: Hopefully by then the noise has stopped and we'll fall in line. :thumbup1:

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 07:27 PM

Doug, IMPBA is on a different situation than NAMBA. We have rules on the books to consider.

Rules that, as written, really can't be consistently enforced.

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 08:00 PM

I get it. I guess I put this in the wrong forum. :wink: I'll just sit back and take notes.

:beerchug:

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 08:06 PM

Haha... no. I stuck my nose in where I probably shouldn't have.

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 08:27 PM

Haha... no. I stuck my nose in where I probably shouldn't have.

No man it's all good!!:laugh::hug1:

We're all brothers from different mothers..

Except Doby, don't know what happened there..

Doby

02-14-2018, 08:35 PM

You realize I can hear you..............:nono: Closest thing to a middle finger I could find!

Doug Smock

02-14-2018, 08:45 PM

You realize I can hear you..............:nono: Closest thing to a middle finger I could find!

Love ya buddy. Don needs you in Atlanta! When are you coming?

dethow

02-14-2018, 08:46 PM

If the spec isn't at least 36.3mm x 60mm (60.2 for tolerance ), then this is a lost exercise.

The numbers were chosen to be INCLUSIVE, not so restrictive that nothing would fit.

The 36x50 motors are a substantial drop off. I don't consider those an option.

Darin, I am kinda laughing right now. Why 36.3mm diameter? Why not 36.2mm (for tolerance)?
Wait...I know the answer... because Dynamite motors are 36.3mm. Just teasing you a little Darin :smile:

Well at least that may be the silver bullet to get rid of the Neu motors. They are 36.5mm diameter. They are consistent there.
Not going to stop a TP 3640 from getting stuffed into a shorter can thou.

I don't think 36x50 motors were brought into this conversation by anyone... so don't know why that WOULD be considered an option.

37mm x 62mm max - out of past, present and future RTR boats is inclusive enough and will manage itself. It will change and evolve over time.

Outside of that... just let me know and I'll start making calls and have as much sh*t as I can stuffed in your can limit. :hornets_nest:

If I don't do it... someone else will. And others will follow. Before you know it people are buyer RTR boats and made to feel that now they need to go spend $250 on a new motor to be able to compete. That's what I think you guys have not factored into this simple dimensions rule set.

And is it a simple dimension rule set if we're talking about creating a list of motors that aren't allowed at club levels because of unfair advantage, but then allowing them at national events. Sorry guys just doesn't make much sense.

Doby

02-14-2018, 08:59 PM

Love ya buddy. Don needs you in Atlanta! When are you coming?

Not in the cards this year...hoping to see you two knuckle heads in Michigan though.

Darin Jordan

02-14-2018, 10:38 PM

Sigh...

David, the dimensions I discuss have little to do with what Dynamite might or might not be. The simply come about as,a result of having researched and ordered and tested every motor I could find out there that might be considered close to the existing spec motors. Shouldn't need to rehash this. I've posted all the data on OSE previously. No other motive other than to get to the truth of real data.

Keep in mind that the rules have to actually incorporate motors that are actually generally available. When you start looking, you'll find there aren't as many available in proper KVS as you might think.

If I can find my data table with my measurements, I'll post it.

It was known all along that the max would be found. That's the nature of racers. Seems we can accept a 1412, but 1415 is too far.

I think that's a good place to start.

Oh, and you'd better go research your RTRs. Not many actually coming with 36mm motors. A few, but adding the RTR part isn't an inclusive solution.

I know the dimensional spec works. Just have to agree on the limits.

dethow

02-15-2018, 12:01 AM

Darin...
I was only having fun and poking at you :hornets_nest: with the Dynamite diameter comment. It was just a funny coincidence I noticed. :wink:

Otherwise... whatever :noidea: You guys do what you're going to do. I'll just :zip-up: and race within the :rules:

But for the record… there are more than a few RTR options with 36mm motors. Ten (10) of them are quick to think of: Revolt 30, Motley Crew, Lucas Oil, UL-1 Superior, Blackjack 29, Veles 29, UL-19, Popeye, Pursuit, Phantom SV33.

Those provide you with three (3) different manufactures and five (5) different motor choices. I don’t know what boat the Dynamite 1500kv came in but that would be a 6th motor. And that’s not accounting for new offerings that may come. Three (3) of those listed boats and two (2) of the motors just came out in the past 24 months.

And if manufactures stop making boats with 36mm motors then the class should just die. We should never expect people to buy a new boat and have to spend money on a smaller/slower motor to race with us. With RTR considered in the rule it will live, breath, grow, shrink and maybe die as necessary.

raptor347

02-15-2018, 01:13 AM

Just a little data on the 1415 capabilty. This is from my raptor running a castle 1415 2400kV (the actual Neu will handle a bit more Power), CC ice 200 with cooling, Dinogy 4S 3300's paralleled (6600 total). Average current 192amps (spikes to 232 amps), ~2500 watts average. Heat time right at 72 seconds in traffic.

Compare that to my Spec setup running an old (read good/early) AQ 2030 averaging 75 amps (spikes to 105) 1050 watts average.

There's roughly 10 mph difference in speed between these to power systems in the same hull.

Food for thought.

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 07:39 AM

Revolt 30, Motley Crew, Lucas Oil, UL-1 Superior

Hobbico filed for Bankruptcy, you do know that, right??

And that puts a total of two motors on the table, both of questionable manufacturing quality from batch to batch. Both that we seem to NOT be able to tech today.

So let's see, how many strikes against those does that make??

Blackjack 29
Veles 29
UL-19

Yup... BJ29 is discontinued, but motors are still available (came with 1800 or 2000, depending on the generation). 1500KV came in the Miss Geico, also discontinued. Motors are still presently available. VELES 29 and UL-29 share the same motor. So, granted, that's three... Again, RTR stuff, here today, gone tomorrow, and who knows what the next batch might produce.

Phantom SV33.

Don't forget the Skater... Two boats, same motor. SSS 3630-2030KV 6-Pole with Pro Marine Logos. Good, solid motors today. Next batch? Hopefully so.

Popeye
Pursuit

Popeye is a pretty damned big boat. You sure it comes with a 36mm motor? Either way, again, SSS motors. Who knows what they'll come up with next.

You seem to want to go back and repeat the mistakes that we made in NAMBA. If that's your thing, have at it. But, as soon as you start adding gray areas like "must be from a RTR", etc., the rules become more of a "gentleman's agreement"
as they are NOT ENFORCEABLE. You've seen all the discussions here over the years. You should see that by now.

And wasn't it YOU who just posted above that you KNOW people were already cheating in this regards? Can YOU tell what bearings they are using? Whether or not they've re-wound the motor? I can't. Most CDs can't.

It is because of all of this and what has already been hashed over that our club, Terry's club, and others, wanted to rectify this once and for all, and simply restrict the physical size. If you start adding weight requirements, or cost requirements, or a maximum KV, or whatever, then enforcement not only becomes dicey, it becomes NECESSARY, which means you have to have a way to actually, accurately, fairly, and PRACTICALLY do it.

Not sure what more needs to be said in that regard. My advice: LEARN from OUR mistakes! Look at our motor list. How many are actually still available? WHY would we want to continue to address this every season as parts become available or not available? HOW do you tech this stuff?

Anyhow, that's why we think (our club, others) we have a better way with just limiting the physical dimensions. It's viable. Just need to settle on the dimensions.

Outside of that, we may have to just agree to disagree on some of this. :) But that doesn't mean we can't share some laughs and some beer.

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 07:44 AM

Found it. HERE are where the dimensions I originally proposed came from. Measuring all of the available P-LTD motors, plus others that were deemed to "might fit" into the class.

As you can see... the diameters and lengths varied. Maximums were determined based on trying to fit them all in. For example, the LENGTH was ultimately determined by the SSS/Pro Marine offering, rounding up slightly for measuring tolerance.

Nothing "pro Dynamite" motor related... Just facts.

156989

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 09:16 AM

Isn't it time we stop thinking we're "fixing" what we once knew as limited and accept that we're going somewhere else? This is where Peterson was right. Abrasive as all git out but still was right. The Wisconsin boys were fed up with quality hiccups though. They wanted to leave limited behind and do something else even though the equipment was still available.

As bad as limited was..........the rule set held it's own for about 8 years. It was the most populated power spec. Pretty solid run.

With the new spec......yes, the old stuff will be legal. Yes, there will be RTR's that can race right out of the box. The RTR' today are better, faster, and more reliable than the RTR's that were available back in 2008 or 2009 when Dave penciled the limited rules. An SV27 from 2009 is not going to compete with a PM Phantom. Not even a little bit close. The boats have evolved. Boats are going to evolve more. Guys are going to find ways to go faster. So is the market. It happened with the old spec. It's going to happen with the new spec. Ever been to a time trial? Why bother? Because guys are always looking for crumbs down in the edge of the envelope. It's the nature of racing.

Will this new path result in new speeds? Very likely. So what? The point is that we're defining something with a max. What that max is I guess................ is STILL being debated despite the results. We're still dwelling on "what if's". We ran it for a year and the "what if's" didn't pop up. Maybe if we run it for 5 years we'll find the magic bullet motor to dispel the whole idea. While we wait........ Elvis has left the building! Analysis paralysis.

What we knew as "limited" isn't sustainable. This isn't speculation anymore. This new thing (feeling like broken record) needs to be both an entry point and still inspiring for everyone. Something between standing on shore watching and being a complete lunatic (you know who you are).

Oh and on weights..... We could do something like that but then it will be: With connectors? Without? Short wires? Long wires? Don't change wires! Shave weight with ceramic bearings? Drill extra holes in the can before hand winding a motor? How about a carbon fiber can? Doesn't really keep it simple for the potential new racer. Then there is the tech work. Confiscate winning boats. Then watch as each contestant disassembles there setup. De-solders the connectors, removes the water jacket, take off the coupler.

dethow

02-15-2018, 09:18 AM

Yeap... we NEED to go from currently 3 motor choices to 20. We can't just settle on going from 3 to 6. And when 2 die off there will still be 4 and maybe others will fill there places.

Two/three years ago when this BS started (got real thick) we all thought AQ are not going to be available much longer we have to do something. Well if the rule had just been written originally to include any motors 37mm to 62mm from any past, present and future RTR modeled... the problem would have already fixed itself and we wouldn't be doing this right now.

But you guys know best. Let's have 20 motor choices, tell guys buying a RTR boat that they now need to go buy a new motor, and lets run a race class with slower boats that what RTR market offers. Sounds like the future to me. Because if you are right and there soon will be no RTR boats with 36mm motors then this entire class is just going to suck and it should just die.

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 10:00 AM

Dave, I get it. I get the frustration. I don't think it's fear. I know you better than that. More like concern for the unknown.

I know I'm feeling some frustration as we ran this for a year. Before it ever becomes even eligible a for a vote will be another year and we're still developing potential "what if" scenario. To make matters more perplexing for me......if Brian comes to MI and wins the response will likely be "see, the spec doesn't work". Lost will be the fact that he's one of the best drivers in the world and is likely willing to sacrifice a chicken in his pits to get 1/32 mph hour more out of a prop.

2 or 3 years? Where ya been man? We raced it at the 2008 Cup, the club, Northern nats, and I think at CAFE that same summer. Dave wrote it up. There was some back n' forth. Then I proposed it in fall of 2008. I think. Not sure exactly when but we ran it officially for the 09 NATS. We've been defending it from day one. BTW I think we got it wrong. It worked but it was wrong. Primarily because we couldn't prove it. Wasn't tech able. It was too touchy feely faith based nonsense. Not because guys couldn't be trusted but because it opened the door for others to question the integrity of anyone that was successful. "Oh yeah he's fast but he cheats" kind of BS.

If it had just said dims + any RTR, how do you define RTR?

I was a distributor for TFL and incorporated. Even had liability insurance. If I got all the parts and put it together in my basement for someone ready to rip is it an RTR? I built Kevin's first Stealth that way less paint. If we say they have to have sold "X" number of units how do we even check that? Say Promarine buys 25 boats at a time and they come on a pallet. When does he qualify? First 25, 50, 200? How about 10 MTR, 10 Skater, 10 Phantom? PM already ran into this with the 100 unit mark that's actually in the book. Sold 100. He figured he was golden. Had Darin run some numbers to check out his motor I think. Wasn't that simple. Adding a motor to NAMBA needs a vote by membership as it's a racing rule. It's easier to get a heart transplant than get a motor added to the list. "What?!? Add a motor? But I have mind crippling fear!?"

If we had just started with dims we would have been further ahead IMO but we were ignorant.

I suspect it will be closer to 40 motor choices with various windings.

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 10:27 AM

SMH Check out that horse. Is that a horse?!?!?Damn dude it looks like it might have been at one time....�� Good grief!!

longballlumber

02-15-2018, 10:58 AM

Oh and on weights..... We could do something like that but then it will be: With connectors?
The weight limit shall not include collet, connectors, or a water jacket.

Without? Short wires? Long wires?
They can be as long or as short as you like. Motor has to be under X grams

Don't change wires!
I am not sure I understand this comment. Most motors have the phase windings coming out of the can. Is there a way you can “change” those? I do know that some of the Dynamite and SSS motors look to have standard wire “crimped” to what I believe is the phase windings. I suppose you could change those but it still needs to be under X grams.

Shave weight with ceramic bearings?
With respect to weight, I don’t think the difference between steel raced/balled bearings are going to be that much heavier than a full ceramic or hybrid ceramic bearing. Especially in the sizes we are dealing with.

Drill extra holes in the can before hand winding a motor?
Most motors already have cooling holes on the endbells, and how do you water cool a can that has holes on the actual can? Not to mention the heat dissipation properties wouldn’t be optimal…?

How about a carbon fiber can?
I am not sure this is a better “mouse trap” either. While there are high-temp laminating epoxies out there, I would suspect the heat dissipation properties wouldn’t be optimal for our little electric motors. In the next day or two, I will try and calculate the weight difference between aluminum can and a carbon can. I don’t think the difference is going to be mind blowing.

Doesn't really keep it simple for the potential new racer.
If you looked at the data, I think you would find we would/could find a max (in conjunction with size limits) that comfortably includes all of the motors you would expect. Actually, I would suggest the weight max would be transparent to a potential new racer.

Then there is the tech work. Confiscate winning boats. Then watch as each contestant disassembles there setup. De-solders the connectors, removes the water jacket, take off the coupler.
Much of what we do with Model Boating is on the honor system. All of this can be processed in the case of a formal protest. The ONLY time someone is going to protest is if they are beating the snot out of everyone. However, if it does come up - #1. Measure the can. If it fits the dims then we #2. Weigh the motor. If the motor is under the max with all of the “stuff” on it… your good to go! If not then take off the water jacket; weigh it…. If you need to take off the connectors; weigh it... I think you get the idea. At the end of the day overweight is overweight.

Am I missing something here?

Doby

02-15-2018, 10:59 AM

But that doesn't mean we can't share some laughs and some beer.

Oh wonderful...Alcohol always makes people more reasonable:laugh:

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 11:31 AM

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 11:47 AM

That's correct Terry. Excellent post Mike. Something that will work!

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 11:57 AM

SMH Check out that horse. Is that a horse?!?!?Damn dude it looks like it might have been at one time....�� Good grief!!

Doug, respectfully, until it's resolved, it's not dead... ;)

Unfortunately, this IS a complete rehashing of what we have been bashing for the past three years of silly season, a few National events, and at race sights all over the country.

Other than the fact that you can actually stuff a 1415 into a 62mm can, there isn't ANYTHING in this thread that is actually new information. All of this has been hashed over before. It's how our club decided to just go with size limits and be done with it. Racing has thrived ever since. I think Terry can claim the same thing.

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 12:01 PM

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 12:28 PM

Doug, however... one more thing... ;)

Much to your approval I'm sure, I think my part in this discussion is done. I don't know what more I could possible say on the matter, so I'll retreat from this and let whatever happens, happen.

I've already about decided to just ignore these classes and work on standard P-setups anyhow, because this is exhausting. :frusty:

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 12:51 PM

That was my point Darin.... Let them die a natural death, kill them off, manage something similar at a district or club level, or don't!.

After all these years we continue to look like a bunch of idiots and it's getting under my skin. It's ridiculous to the point of embarrassment!

We have 30 limited boats entered in a D13 GP race this month and the contestants don't know this discussion is taking place. That's success in my opinion! 9 years ,no noise, no protests, just folks having fun racing reasonably priced models without a National rule set.

I realize that NAMBA is in a different place, perhaps that discussion should take place in the NAMBA forum.

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 01:12 PM

Sorry guys.....day job too. haha

On the wires Mike asked about........

The Proboat 1500 has crimps at the can where they adapt to stranded silver. You can/could/I did take the stranded wire and crimp off. Then soldered right to the wind. Pain in the a$$! Advantage? I don't think so. If anything I think I murdered that particular motor.

The Proboat 2000 motor has the same setup but no crimps. The strands are soldered to the windings. It's a poor design as that's the week point. You can try to solder right to the windings but they are so short that you can't get a connector in there. Tried this. Baked it.

The Promarine motor has stranded wires soldered to the windings and then a brass sleeve around the joint. Seems like a great idea but the solder they use is low temp and is the fail point. Same problem as the PB 2000. The winding is too short without the stranded wire. I was so sure this one would work. I tried butchering the end bell to fit the connectors where I wanted them. I even tried a copper extension. Barbecued 6 of these in the end. 3 modified. 3 stock.

I have no idea why any of the manufacturers thought an extra joint in the power delivery was a good thing. More resistance is more heat is more power loss is more heat is more resistance is more heat is more power loss is more heat.......annnndddd thermal nuclear melt down.

The leads on a TP are solid windings. No joints. However, most of them are super long unless you knew to order them short. You can clip them and re-solder but getting the enamel off the winding is a bastard. The TP wasn't the fastest thing we ran but man can you abuse these! Long life span even if you do evil things to them. Like post race saturation temps over 300 and still make the next heat. That motor is ruined but it still runs and didn't take a speedo with it. Go figure.

Point being, if you were looking to shave a couple grams to get legal with a particular motor that wouldn't ordinarily be you could trim the leads a bit.

I was riding the "what if" train all season by the way. Trying things to see if it made a difference. Seeing what COULD happen if this/that/the other. I was glad when I saw other guys trying things outside the box.

longballlumber

02-15-2018, 01:43 PM

Mike, yer making a good case for it. Adding to that, how is that any different than tearing down a a gas motor? Nobody is doing that until someone stakes a claim. Isn't that the case? Showing my ignorance again.

I would need to review the rule book to find out EXACTLY how protests for the Gas/Nitro are processed, but YES the idea is the same.

dethow

02-15-2018, 02:09 PM

Anything you add to a dimensional limitation, is simply being added to make people feel better. Any additions to the dimensional limitations have little value in actually regulating a class. The just complicate tech'ing and enforcement.

Actually… Mike might be on to something here. Steve (OSE) I had brought this weight issue up in another thread several weeks ago and before I had the 1415s in my hands.

At the time I had weight for a standard 70mm long 1415 at 292 grams. I assumed that may drop to about 280 grams with 8mm of the can and shaft cut off.

The next heaviest motor I had looked at was the TP3630 at 263 grams.

At that time, I didn’t have a Dyn2000kv in my hands and could only find data that showed it was 296 grams which included its stock jacket and connectors. I made some assumptions that without a jacket or connectors the Dyn2000 would probably be in the 265-gram area.

So I said that by the time we built in some tolerance allowance we’d probably have to set a max at 275-gram area. So my resolution was that I could probably get the 1415 close to that by shortening wires, taking as much off the shaft as possible as well as flat spot. I then I could even grid some thickness of front and end bells of the motor to lose a couple grams. Long story short (to late), I didn’t think it would help anything.

UNTIL NOW… Turns out that the Dyn2000kv motor actually weighs 252 grams without a jacket but with connector still on. So the heaviest motor (I’ve seen) that people have been running is the TP3630 at 263 grams. And it turns out my 1415s came back at 292 to 294 grams depending on wind. We could set a max at 270 grams and a 1415 would NEVER get there. Nor would anything like a 1415 motor.

It’s easy to measure my 1415s at 61.5mm long and see the copper is almost coming out the back end of it. I think it’d be the case with any motor weather made by a manufacture or in someone’s basement… If there is a protest made… Measure the motor first. If it fits, then look in the motor and if its stuffed with copper it would justify pulling it for a weight. From there, as Mike said, strip it as necessary until it gets under the max. If jacket, collet and connectors are off and it’s still over… then it’s illegal.

Based on numbers I’ve seen I think we could go with 37mm dia x 62mm long x 270 grams weight as maximum measurements and we’d be good to go. The 270 grams max would leave enough room that most motors would be under with connectors still on and maybe even jackets too. At the same time, I believe it’d keep anything which would have some dominance over the majority out of the class.

dethow

02-15-2018, 02:34 PM

Anything you add to a dimensional limitation, is simply being added to make people feel better. Any additions to the dimensional limitations have little value in actually regulating a class. The just complicate tech'ing and enforcement.

So Darin, in a much shorter statement...

A weight max of 270 grams would for sure knock out the possibility of a 1415 motor. So it WOULD add value in actually regulating the class.

Would it complicate tech'ing and enforcement? Obviously... but at least a method of protesting and enforcement can be figured out and accomplished with as minimal necessity and invasion as possible. Complicate some... Yes. But not impossible by any means to tech and enforce.

You need to open up a little Darin. :hug1: Understood it's not your ideal and it's a compromise, but it'd probably work.

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 03:05 PM

Complicate some... Yes. But not impossible by any means to tech and enforce.

You need to open up a little Darin. :hug1: Understood it's not your ideal and it's a compromise, but it'd probably work.

Sigh... I'm dragged back in... :crying:

OK, let me just illustrate the issue I have with weight.

National event, day is packed with heats, and heat 1 gets run. I stomp the field in P-LTD OPC Tunnel (not really that hypothetical, in reality... :bounce: )

Someone protests me on the grounds of having a motor that weighs too much immediately following the heat.

I'm not forced to remove my motor, remove the coupler (precisely positioned to allow just the right amount of end-play in the cable), remove my water jacket (siliconed on? bummer right?), and likely unsolder my connectors, so that I can fight the protest.

I've now missed my next class, and am stuck with a boat that I now have to reassemble in order to try to make heat 2 of OPC Tunnel.

Now, imagine that for a rigger, or something where the motor is CRAMMED inside and isn't so easily removed.

Even if I win the protest, what is the protester out? $25.00? And he's still racing, now not having to compete against me for at least a heat. They surely aren't going to hold Heat 2 just to let me get my boat back in shape. Sounds like a winning strategy to me. You said it yourself: "cheaters are going to cheat."... That doesn't necessarily apply to just using a hotter motor. It's not a competitors strategy. Much easier than "team driving" and taking me out in turn 1.

Sorry, but no. It's a waste of time, in my opinion, and it more than "slightly" over-complicates things.

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 03:21 PM

TRUCKPULL

02-15-2018, 03:34 PM

Top three boats get teched at the end of the day.

Dia., length, and if it looks like it is packed with wire - weight.

Larry

dethow

02-15-2018, 03:46 PM

Darin, I think you are being a little over dramatic, sorry... The sky isn't falling.

"a method of protesting and enforcement can be figured out and accomplished with as minimal necessity and invasion as possible"

IOW... if you are running a Dyn2000kv I don't think the system will allow for some A-Hole to cause you to miss a heat.
Also that motor wouldn't need everything removed to make 270g even if a CD did decide to have it pulled.
And I don't think a CD should pull a motor under protest unless it become obvious after size measurements and visual inspection of copper in the can that a motor needs to be pulled and weighed. Some judgements need to be made.
Some of those judgements will include not demanding a motor be pulled until a time in which it doesn't effect the racing of all individuals involved.

Most of the time, this will be a none issue. People with standard (well known) motors in there boats will probably never be protested.
Those that choice to have a manufacture make something weird or someone winds their own and everyone can see there is more copper in that can then most other "standard" motors... well you should expect that you may under go some protests. That's what you signed up for when you choose to pack a legal sized can with as much weight as you can.

Is a CD going to have me pull my 1412s for weight? Probably not because its only 55m long and there's no way there's enough copper in a 55mm can to put it over 270grams. Done.
Is a CD going to pull a TP3630 that measures 61mm long and has copper up to the end bell? Probably... but that will be done in a way as to not ruin anyone's race day.

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 03:48 PM

Add weights... that's fine. Clubs can do whatever they want.

dethow

02-15-2018, 03:54 PM

Sorry, but no. It's a waste of time, in my opinion, and it more than "slightly" over-complicates things.

So Darin... what do we do? What's your idea to get a 1415 type motor out but still be inclusive?
You said you are done... pulling the proposal from NAMBA and everyone else can figure it out.

But yet when a somewhat good idea is explored your using dramatic, sky is falling, illustations to say its a waste of time.

It accomplished the question. Gets the 1415 and similars out. Not a waste of time as I see it.

dethow

02-15-2018, 03:55 PM

Add weights... that's fine. Clubs can do whatever they want.

Okay... thanks for opening up a LITTLE.
Now Mike should collect his data and let's build off this. :popcorn2:

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 03:56 PM

Pretty sure protests like that are not checked between heats Darin. Used to be for NAMBA it was by committee at the close of racing. I don't remember how IMPBA does at the moment. Has to be similar.

So you would still race and be tech'd after. If you fail you;re dq'd and everyone moves up. Not ideal but is the standard.

That's probably the intent, Terry, except that NAMBA's rules only address "engines". We run "motors"... oversight, due to us being the redheaded step-childs of the RC boating world, but still clear.

Not sure what IMPBA does. Either way, you are probably right.

Invasive protests can wait until the END of the 4-rounds... whatever.

OK, now I'm done. Don't feel like opening up my mind on this. It's closed. Length/Diameter is my thing. I'll stick with that. Unnecessary tear-downs, in my mind, are just that. Not worth it. I'll race P and Q.

dethow

02-15-2018, 04:06 PM

Not worth it. I'll race P and Q.

:banroll: Yeah... we did it. We got Darin out of limited/spec classes... we did it guys. :beerchug:

:sarcasm1: Should be obvious. Sorry you feel that way Darin.

You'll be missed. :tiphat: Hopefully we prove you wrong and you join us again someday. :hug1:

T.S.Davis

02-15-2018, 04:24 PM

Darin, you might be over thinking this. Take a breath. It'll be okay. hahaha Have a shmoke n' pancake.

Absolutely not tearing down top three finishers. If someone wants to fork out the dough to file three protests then fine. That is not nor should it be a CD decision IMO.

I really think the number of times that a protest was made would be minimal. If cheating was expected already (I read that in here somewhere).............why aren't there protests now? We've already established there are guys capable or re-winding a motor, swapping bearings, balancing rotors, whatever. It could have been done. Yet nobody has ever protested a motor to my knowledge since the old limited rules passed. Because most everyone knows the rule, complies, and we trust each other. 9 years of the class with rules that could be circumvented and nobody at a race though they were being cheated. Hmmmmmmm. Collective pat on the back fellas.

The frequency of guys tearing down setups I think would be nil even if we did have a weight. Not saying that is necessarily the answer or is entirely necessary but I'm listening.

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 04:43 PM

Mike is onto something David.
IMPBA-Protested equipment is allowed to run until such time it can be evaluated. The procedure can be found in section K Technical standards. I suggest everyone read it. You reallydon't want to get caught with a boat that doesn't fit the rules.

Bear with me a second. The guys running LSG (Large Scale Gas) classes with the "stock"/ Super Sport engines (Thunderboat, Crackerbox, Super Sport mono) know that if they set a record, are one of the top three at a nationals, or are protested, their engines will be torn down, inspected, and handed back to them in a box or bag. That's just the nature of the beast if you choose to run those classes! The Thunderboat and Super Sport classes are thriving. LSG 27 Crackerbox went to Super Sport engine rules and it saved the class. Just saying they voted in a rule change with a tear down tech procedure and saved the class.

Pulling a motor, possibly removing the jacket and or connectors is no big deal compared to the above. If you don't want to subject yourself to that, don't.
Tearing down the top three? Not really necessary IMO, but a host club could certainly do that if they wanted to.

Doby

02-15-2018, 04:48 PM

Well Terry, you had better be prepared to tear down the top three finishers in any of the classes I'm entered in..because I get beat its definitely not because:

1) They drive better than me
2) They tweak the props better than me
3) They set up their boats better than me
4) They spend more of their free time trying things out

Nope ..its gotta be cheating.....:drool:

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 04:55 PM

9 years of the class with rules that could be circumvented and nobody at a race though they were being cheated. Hmmmmmmm. Collective pat on the back fellas.
The frequency of guys tearing down setups I think would be nil even if we did have a weight.

I agree.

And BTW, the "Amp Daddy" rewinds were legal motors. They met the "spec".:thumbup1:

The Offshore boat with no number or sponsors was not!!:laugh::tongue::wink:

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 08:14 PM

Well, crap... now I have to care... ;-)

156996

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 08:44 PM

Welcome to the IMPBA Darin!
@#$%#&@^^#%$%% :laugh::smile:

Lynne is quick isn't she?

TheShaughnessy

02-15-2018, 09:47 PM

I thought spec motors burnt up all the time anyways so the motor should be installed in such a way that allows quick swaps. I think Tony can do a motor swap in 5 minutes, about the time it takes to run one gas heat. I'm sure all of us are capable of some addition/subtraction. Rather than removing the connectors why not just have 3 of the connectors in question on hand so they can be weighed , same can be said about the water jacket, wires, collet, etc. why would it all have to be removed? Motor with all the "accessories" weighs in at 270 g, water jacket etc. weigh in at 50 g ( these numbers are made up). Actual weight of motor = 220 g.

Doug Smock

02-15-2018, 10:02 PM

No Michael if motors are burning up all the time there is something wrong with the set up or the mentality.:wink:

Darin Jordan

02-15-2018, 10:40 PM

Exactly, Doug. Only motors I've ever burned were ones where I knew that risk existed!

TheShaughnessy

02-15-2018, 11:29 PM

I forgot sarcasm doesn't transfer to the written word very well and it wasn't really the main point of my post. My point was that you don't need to strip the motor entirely to get a weight for it. I have 5 spec motors I bought in anticipation of burning motors (generation change of AQ2030 ring a bell?) I'm not burning motors, they are all still in my box.

Engine vs Motor is purely semantics , the definitions are nearly identical. That being the case, rules for protests can be found in section 16 on page 4 of the NAMBA rule book.(wrong organization, I know) To sum it up, even if protested you would be allowed to continue racing all 4 heats. However, the results would be pending inspection. As was stated earlier.

Ken Haines

02-16-2018, 10:35 AM

Mike, yer making a good case for it. Adding to that, how is that any different than tearing down a a gas motor? Nobody is doing that until someone stakes a claim. Isn't that the case? Showing my ignorance again.

I think I agree.....I really like Mike Ball's idea here !
By simply adding some well researched weight numbers we can get to where we all want to be.
Darin's dimensions with the weight addition safe guarding the overstuffed cans like a Neu 1415 or others.
I will be racing Neu motors, but agree that the 1415 could ruin the class. I think Brian's data confirmed that fear.
I too realize that this thread has put a damper on the rule change, but better deal with now than after it is an actual rule.

I truely believe this now will turn out for the best. Just a simple addition of weight criteria and what will probably be
very few if any tear downs since everyone will know by the weights what will pass a tech or not. Certainly the
tear down would come only after an events final heat. I want to commend Mike for the idea and Dave for sticking his neck out here.
This to me is how we should solve our problems. Thanks for Brian Stepping in with the data to go along with the great lengths of
time and diligence that Darin put in to getting this thing 99.9% perfect. No one can think of everything and with what sounds
like a good weight number coming after Mike's research this should all work out very soon. Also want to thank Terry for
his guidance and thoughts on this.....realizing also that the timing of this must give Tom & Terry a huge headache worrying about
how this could effect their Nat's.

I have cancelled my 1415 orders and will be changing them to 1412's today.
As soon as we get the weight numbers we will be incorporating that into our District 3 FE Rules.
Congrats to all and good work here :bounce:

HTVboats

02-16-2018, 10:58 AM

dethow

02-16-2018, 11:00 AM

Great post, Ken. Thank you. :beerchug:

I agree you with regarding the pressure on Terry, Tom and the MMEU club regarding this issue. And with that I want it to be known that I have no issue if as a club we choose to blacklist these cut down 1415 motors out of our 2018 club races and the upcoming Nats event.

I don’t want a dark cloud hanging over our club or this event. I think it’s premature to enact the additional weight rule thing and start trying to figure out what the weight should be and how protests are conducted. I think at this point, the simple thing to do is just simply say the cut down 1415s will not be allowed.

I hope Terry, Tom and I can have a brief conversation on this prior to our upcoming MMEU meeting.

Thanks to everyone for the conversation and from here I’m out on this issue. I’ll now be awaiting Mike Ball to collect his data and guide us (IMPBA) forward. Congratulations to Mike on being the new FE Director for IMPBA. I hope that was okay for that to be put out there, but oh well. :spy:

dethow

02-16-2018, 11:08 AM

Adding weight to the mix in my opinion will ruin this class. Size is very easy and can pretty much be done visually, and officially with a caliper. Now add a scale and the officials who have to enforce this rule after running an event and what club wants to add this headache to their race. Pull your motor and desolder your connectors. Not!
I can tell you I have no interest in promoting this class after this discussion.
Mic

I'm sorry but this is truly the last thing I'll say on this.

I don't think posts like this are productive. No...! the addition of weight is not ideal but then how do we get motors like the 1415 and similars out of the class if we only use dimensions?

I understand not liking the weight... then bring an idea if you have one.
Because if nothing is done, the 1415 and similars will ruin this class.

Like Terry said... I doubt there will be many if ANY protests.
And even if made they will be much less invasive then what gas/nitro guys deal with.

BTW... probably 95% of the motors which will be used are going to fit within the max weight with connectors still on. Many will fit with connectors and collet still on. The TP3630 weighs 263g bare. Most motors currently being used/considered for the class are in the 240g to 255g range. I predict the weight limit will probably be in the area of 270g. The cut down 1415s weigh 292g. So they will be out and any other similar custom motors will be knocked out. Custom motors will be allowed by the rules, but you will need to be under the max weight limit and yes, if you choose to go custom you MAY undergo some protests. If you're using a known manufacture motor, you'll never see a protest. I can say that with almost certainty.

HTVboats

02-16-2018, 11:49 AM

How do you keep the 1415 out. Don't allow altered motors. Even the motor list that rarely gets updated works. Make a decision on length 60, 61.3, 62 and go with it. I have raced in the mid west and southeast for close to 40 years and run races over the years. If you think for a minute there won't be protests your naïve. Again if you want to see arguments and hard feelings add a format that encourages protests. The intent of spec was to keep things simple and inexpensive to attract new racers.
Mic

dethow

02-16-2018, 12:10 PM

How do you keep the 1415 out. Don't allow altered motors.

Alteration from what? After Manufacture? My 1415 motors are NOT modified after manufactured. Now what?
And now start defining manufacture. Is someone in their basement a manufacture? If a certain number of motors had to be produced, how do we get those numbers? These thoughts have been discussed already. Doesn't work. More complicated, harder to define and more interpretations.

Don't allow altered motors? So now we'll see protests over bearings, re-winds and many... many other things that can be "altered" on a stock manufactured motor.

Sorry.. nice try but that issue has been beat down. Doesn't work to just say no alteration. The protests would be even worse and more complicated then a simple weight.

dethow

02-16-2018, 12:18 PM

Make a decision on length 60, 61.3, 62 and go with it.

So we go with 60mm max length. Now I'll call up Neu and have them cut the guts down on a 1415 motor and stuff as much as they can into a 60mm can.
Will probably weigh about 280g to 285g and will become an "own it or chase it" motor. So go spend $250 to $300 on a motor to be competitive in the class. Class is ruined.
Or worse... someone builds there own packed motor at 285g and no one else can even get it at all without knowing how to build a motor. People are pissed and class is ruined.

And can't just go smaller than 60mm because other good motors would then be out.

dethow

02-16-2018, 12:24 PM

If you think for a minute there won't be protests your naïve.

As Terry Davis said...

I really think the number of times that a protest was made would be minimal. If cheating was expected already (I read that in here somewhere).............why aren't there protests now? We've already established there are guys capable or re-winding a motor, swapping bearings, balancing rotors, whatever. It could have been done. Yet nobody has ever protested a motor to my knowledge since the old limited rules passed. Because most everyone knows the rule, complies, and we trust each other. 9 years of the class with rules that could be circumvented and nobody at a race though they were being cheated.

dethow

02-16-2018, 12:49 PM

The intent of spec was to keep things simple and inexpensive to attract new racers.

Exactly... :beerchug:

Simple = Diameter x Length x Weight

Inexpensive = Utilizing a weight limit to block out expensive custom made motors that will dominant the class.
Someone can go spend the money and/or time with a custom motor, but with a weight limit its probably not going to dominant. Can only get so much in a 37mm x 62mm canister that can't weight over 270 grams. With no weight limit, I've proven that a dominant motor can be produced within a 37mm x 62mm canister. It weighs 10% more then the next heaviest motor. I say dominant based on Brian Buaas's experience and data from that motor.

New racers will come because they can buy RTR boats and be competitive with stock motors.
This will be even less expensive then current NAMBA rules because as it stands if a newbie really likes the Proboat UL-19 or Veles 29, they spend $430 on the boat... or they like the Promarine Skater or Phantom SV 33 for $590, but then have to go buy a different $75 motor which will probably cause the boat to go slower. :doh: Oh... and that newbie needs to learn how to solder new connectors on that $75 motor to mate with the esc.

T.S.Davis

02-16-2018, 01:07 PM

I tried really hard to not think about this for a couple days. I'm kinda pissy about it now. Sorry guys.

Simple and easy to tech to attract new boaters is IMO still only part of the goal. It has to be at least interesting enough to veteran racers to make them want to participate too. I know Darin is frustrated, but the class (and FE really) needs guys like him to stick with it. Race with the new guy. Teach him to do all that crap Doby mentioned. We're all better for it. Get good at spec and the next thing you know you have a T rigger. Okay.......that's a big leap but you get the idea.

For MMEU club series, the addition of a weight limit would make zero difference. We already know what everyone is running. Only Dave's fresh 1415's would be even close to a limit if we came up with one. It still would have to be protested in the appropriate fashion.

dethow

02-16-2018, 01:10 PM

Oh... and that newbie needs to learn how to solder new connectors on that $75 motor to mate with the esc.

Weird enough... and I think others will agree.

That right there has been one of the biggest deterrents for new racers. Tell a guy what boat to go buy and he's with you. Once you start telling him to then go buy this specific motor and the need to learn out to solder on new connectors... You see the glazed over look in their eyes and you know they'll never turn a lap of racing.

dethow

02-16-2018, 01:25 PM

For MMEU club series, the addition of a weight limit would make zero difference. We already know what everyone is running. Only Dave's fresh 1415's would be even close to a limit if we came up with one. It still would have to be protested in the appropriate fashion.

Terry,
Whatever you, Tom and the rest of the club think is best.
I just wanted you all to know that I will not be offended or hurt if we need to knock these 1415 out of the races.

With that said... I don't think a weight limit is the way to do it right now. We don't need to complicate things this season and add the possibility of protests. We just simply say 37mm x 62mm motor limits except for cut down Neu 1415s and TP 3640s. (Add the TP just incase)

Think about it. We'll talk.
I just don't want guys leaving the Nats feeling they may have gotten that second or third place finish if those 1415s weren't allowed. I don't think me racing my motors will effect first because I'm not good enough, but it could start to effect who's getting seconds and thirds.

Rumpelhardt

02-16-2018, 02:43 PM

An idea from an outsider that may have already been thought of but how about setting general motor specs and instituting a "claimer rule" . Seems to work pretty well in local stock car racing.

Doug Smock

02-16-2018, 03:04 PM

Hi Robert, it has been discussed several times through the years.

It's Friday fellas. What do you say we take a little break and revisit this next week?

Bet ya can't do it!!:hug1:

CraigP

02-16-2018, 03:21 PM

I understand your fatigue Doug, this is a very hard subject to come up with a working solution. I have an idea to just throw out there...

Instead of diving into the minutia of motor details and specs, look at it from a bigger picture. A solution that takes all the cheater tactics out of play, batteries, ESC mods, the list goes on and on. But in the end, an out of spec boat is going to have more ft lbs of torque at the prop. My idea is to set a max torque output. Then, we create a hand-held dynometer that hooks to the drive shaft by an adapter when the prop is removed.

This is easier than your thinking right now... it’s basically a brushed motor, that is hooked to to a resistor pack. The resistors are calibrated for torque output. Now, all that’s required by the Techs at the race is to hook it to the boat, hit full throttle and look for a green or red light. Who cares how they cheated, whether it’s motor mods, illegal batts, ESC mods, whatever! You got too much torque, your out of there.

Now folks will really think twice about cheating because they don’t have the club’s dynometer. I would be willing to help develop this. Someone should also ask Jay’s opinion. But it seems to me, you have to take the check to the last element in the boat, and that’s torque on the prop shaft...

Darin Jordan

02-16-2018, 03:40 PM

David wins... I think I've met my match in the "over-analyze-it" department!

He and I are going to get along just fine! :beerchug:

Have a GREAT weekend, everyone!! :tiphat:

dethow

02-16-2018, 04:08 PM

He and I are going to get along just fine! :beerchug:

:iagree: Look forward to seeing you in Michigan. :hug1:

I think we will agree on one thing thou... taking a weight would be a lot better then trying to measure torque.
I could over analyze the sh*t out of that one. :bash: I'm not even going there. Just a simply NO WAY :ThumbsDown01:

Doug Smock

02-16-2018, 05:19 PM

Craig did bring something to the conversation that I don't remember seeing in the (we'd probably pee our pants if we knew how) many posts on this subject. Interesting Craig.

Have a great weekend fellas!
I'm going to a grandsons birthday party tomorrow. Sunday I'm going to work on boats not talk about them!

:beerchug:

CraigP

02-16-2018, 05:57 PM

Doug, could you please copy my post and send to Jay (Fluid) to get another opinion? He’s an electronics guy, but this is a very SIMPLE system... I’m sure he will read something from you, thanks!

Doug Smock

02-16-2018, 08:38 PM

Doug, could you please copy my post and send to Jay (Fluid) to get another opinion? He’s an electronics guy, but this is a very SIMPLE system... I’m sure he will read something from you, thanks!

Will do Craig.

dethow

02-16-2018, 09:13 PM

OMG... guys! Just stop this now. :frusty:

First: Same motor in different winds will have completely different torque outputs.

Second: You say: "Now folks will really think twice about cheating because they don’t have the club’s dynometer."
If no one has this custom made dynometer then how will anyone even know if their setup/motor is legal?

Third: Lets get into batteries. What's the voltage and discharge rate of the battery being utilized in this test? That's going to effect the output torque.

Fourth: What timing is the esc set at? Different timings will produce a different torque output.

I really hope this was just :sarcasm1: Because this is just plain crazy... :doh:

CraigP

02-16-2018, 09:32 PM

Motors are not free energy devices! You don’t get “free torque” because of a winding. Given that the class has a specified voltage, the only change to the dynometer would be for kv. That would be a resistor value change, easily implemented with a selector switch. Timing makes no difference, only changes the impedance of the power transfer between ESC and motor. There’s a “sweet timing” and all else is a loss. It’s like tuning a resonant mode circuit.

Facts are facts, everything you have been discussing are teqniques to increase torque, which is HP. You all seem to be protecting your way of modifying, while shutting down avenues to others. Power at the prop shaft is the only measurement that takes all your little tricks into account. Hell, keep doing what you want, but if you go over the max torque, your out. It’s not the tech crew’s job to tell you specifically why you’re over torque, it’s your responsibility to make sure it’s compliant.

All other “uphill” checks will always leave things in a subjective light. Motors change with the manufacturer’s, how the hell are you going to keep up? Bottom line, this shifts the responsibility from the tech crew to the racer. It’s a fast check and certainly less intrusive than pulling your motor and somebody taking a micrometer to it. That’s crazy, not the dynometer idea...

dethow

02-16-2018, 09:54 PM

Hell, keep doing what you want, but if you go over the max torque, your out. It’s not the tech crew’s job to tell you specifically why you’re over torque, it’s your responsibility to make sure it’s compliant.

So if I could get this straight... I don't have a dynometer and I should just keep doing what I want, but then the tech crew is going to come over and tell me I have to much torque and not provide me any information on why that may be.
I just don't get to race. I don't get to race in an event I traveled how many miles to get to and cost me how much money in travel expenses because I don't have a dynometer. Because I won't know the results until I get there and even once I get the results I'll have no idea how to get legal.
Buts it okay... its all my fault because its my responsibility to make sure it's compliant. My responsibility even thou I don't have a dynometer. :cursing:

Good luck with that... :ThumbsDown01:

But wait... all is good. :rockon2: I'll just change my esc timing and get it within the torque limit.
Or wait... maybe I'll just turn down the throttle limits on my remote.
I think we can all guess what's going to happen when that tech crew leaves my pit. :spy:

I can't believe this is even kinda in the conversation. :frusty:

I'm out... have a good weekend all. Go USA Olympic team :usa:

Doug Smock

02-16-2018, 10:24 PM

LOL Take a deep cleansing breath......... ok, good..........aaand exhale..... now, repeat and we'll see everyone Monday.

:hug1:

CraigP

02-16-2018, 10:27 PM

Doug Smock

02-16-2018, 10:45 PM

Well you’re right about that, there are tweaks that could be made. So really, if it’s you're intent to go all out (in a limited class) to gain an advantage, then there’s really no way to tech it all out. This is exactly why I don’t race. All of this conversation is really not would I would call a positive PR campaign for class racing. It’s just too much hassle and the politics really take a lot of fun out of it. I leave this up to you guys to sort out... Time for the weekend!

And you're right about that.

Ok fellas, a forum first. A forced break. I'll open the thread back up on Monday morning.
If Steven thinks I have done this in error he can smack my hand and open it back up sooner.:thumbup1:
Don't start a new thread, I'll be watching. lol

Doug Smock

02-19-2018, 07:37 AM

Good morning fellas, hope everyone had a great weekend!

Listen guys. The dimension proposal was rejected by the IMPBA BOD at a recent meeting. There was no contest. There is no need for any more discussion on that, it won't be revisited.

Mike Ball is our new National Fast Electric Director. Information on who, what, where, when, and why, will be published in the April Roostertail.

It is important to know that Mike is currently working at the direction of the IMPBA BOD on behalf of the membership. It is in our best interest to support him in his in his efforts to accomplish the task before him. These are unique classes and require a unique approach. Mike is seeking information on motor dimensions and weight. This IS the current path of the IMPBA. Remember, no racing rule goes into the rulebook without a one year trial and a membership vote. Lets see where this takes us.

https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?58818-Need-some-help-collecting-motor-data

Thanks for taking this on Mike!"

For the sake of keeping these discussions as clean as possible please take the NAMBA discussion to this thread. https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52649-P-Limited-Motors-Im-going-to-jump-on-the-hot-seat

jaike5

02-19-2018, 08:18 AM

Congrats Mike, I feel good that your the FE national director of IMPBA. I'm sure you will get everything aligned the way it should be.
Cheers, Jay.

rayzerdesigns

02-19-2018, 08:41 AM

T.S.Davis

02-19-2018, 09:25 AM

I'm pretty comfortable with the current direction. It's all just data collection now. Length x width x weight = done

I do know that the BOD has had this discussion. Apparently they were pretty well versed. There was a time the BOD members wouldn't have given us a thought. These days they're engaged though. Very cool times. They're on board with finding a viable setup. Something that not only works but will hold up for a while. So no worries guys. They'll get it. With some help from Mr. Ball. Just be patient. Honestly I'm very encouraged.

Craig, you can't limit torque. Different boats like different things. A rigger for instance (most of them) wants rpm. They weigh nothing and if done correctly have very little drag. Torque is less important. So maybe 2300kv with a seemingly small prop. Let er rip. Where as a mono run in offshore is accelerating a out of many turns. Usually run wet because the water gets weird by lap three. For that you need to get out of the hole as quickly as possible. More blade in the water. You need torque for that.

We're not defining a power spec for a single type of boat. There are multiple hull and race types we're covering with this.

Wonder if I'll have to call Mike by "yer lordship" or something. haha

Steven Vaccaro

02-19-2018, 09:53 AM

I think the whole thing is over complicated at this point.

You are taking a system that really worked well for many years and are now tossing it. WHY? Because no one moved with the times. The motor list got old and became worthless.

My suggestion would be this. Start a board that deals with the spec motors, make a list of allowed motors. Then review and add on a annual or biannual basis.

T.S.Davis

02-19-2018, 12:12 PM

I've admitted multiple times that we blew it on the original rule set. We were ignorant. Worked because guys were pretty trust worthy.

This new direction...........we're completely un-complicating it. How is length, width, weight complicated? Ever see what the gas guys are up against for tech if required? Yikes. haha How about an N1 brushed motor check? 4 pages in the book on how to do that.

We can't do another list either. Change it every year through an act of congress? Then we would need parameters for a motor to be allowed ON to the list. Then we also have to prove that a motor on site is actually as manufactured. You couldn't have a list and then allow modifications to motors on the list. That's where we are now. List of motors we can't tech and prove are correct. I don't want to ever check a motor. That's my dream but if I had to.............I need to be able to prove it's correct. With a list that's subject to manufacturing whim it's impossible.

example: Next time you see an AQ 2030......tell me if it's been re-wound. There could be two 2030's still in their original boxes side by side built on different dates with different thickness wires. Which one is the right one? They both are. Now go back and figure out if the another was re-wound. This is kinda what Smock has been saying to me for years. The ability to know beyond a doubt that a motor is as specified by the rule set didn't exist. We were taking it on faith. Faith never bit us on the butt as far as I know. The FE crowd is pretty respectable in my experience but it did allow a shadow of doubt to creep into the race results. Others looked at the results and said hmmmmmmm.

Another thing I'm excited about is that NAMBA is trying to put together something based on the same parameters. Meaning that no matter what organizations events you attend you should have a legal setup. How cool will that be! None of this trying to figure out what's legal crap.

Doug Smock

02-19-2018, 12:31 PM

dethow

02-19-2018, 01:31 PM

I'm very happy with the direction this all seems to be heading. :popcorn2:
Not as SIMPLE as several would have liked but still a very techible rule set at diameter x length x weight. :rules:

I honestly do feel for Darin and Terry as they have both been on the front lines for pretty much every single discussion on this issue. Them along with many others including myself on quit a few threads. We all thought we were close to a finish line and nothing left to do but race.... :beerchug:

And not to mention Doug and other moderators who have had to read pretty much every word on these discussions. :frusty:

We've had a bump in the road. :doh: But I really believe an important issue has been brought to the forefront and is in the works of being fixed.

I have complete faith that Mr. Mike Ball and the IMPBA BOD will put together a good proposal that will be best for the class and hobby. The proposal will also be good enough to make it through a one year trial and membership vote.
Probably get some votes from people basically says... "YES, please lord just make this discussion end!"

And I, like Terry, hope NAMBA and its BOD will end up with a similar if not exact same rule set for their limited class. :Praying:

Darin Jordan

02-19-2018, 01:47 PM

If "we" (IMPBA ;) ) can come up with a set of weights to add to the dimensions, and a CLEAR and concise and MINIMALLY INVASIVE way to TECH it, AND we can END this discussion once and for all, then I'll be happy to dive in one more time and work with Ray and Dave N. and whoever else to get this equivalent rule through the NAMBA system. It seems like there are going to have to be additional words involved, which is always dangerous, but if someone smarter than me can figure all that out, we'd like nothing more than to have equivalent rules so we can all be one happy family. :)

T.S.Davis

02-19-2018, 02:23 PM

"Yer Lordship" lol Wonder if we can make that stick? You know, once he earns it...:laugh:

Back when I was appointed to the NAMBA chair thing, Dan Chase told me I was officially everybody's bitch.

If he signs up I may go into the signups for the Nats and change his name.

Doug Smock

02-19-2018, 04:26 PM

Dan Chase, blast from the past! Wonder what he's up to.

Steven Vaccaro

02-19-2018, 05:15 PM

I've admitted multiple times that we blew it on the original rule set. We were ignorant. Worked because guys were pretty trust worthy.

This new direction...........we're completely un-complicating it. How is length, width, weight complicated? Ever see what the gas guys are up against for tech if required? Yikes. haha How about an N1 brushed motor check? 4 pages in the book on how to do that.

We can't do another list either. Change it every year through an act of congress? Then we would need parameters for a motor to be allowed ON to the list. Then we also have to prove that a motor on site is actually as manufactured. You couldn't have a list and then allow modifications to motors on the list. That's where we are now. List of motors we can't tech and prove are correct. I don't want to ever check a motor. That's my dream but if I had to.............I need to be able to prove it's correct. With a list that's subject to manufacturing whim it's impossible.

example: Next time you see an AQ 2030......tell me if it's been re-wound. There could be two 2030's still in their original boxes side by side built on different dates with different thickness wires. Which one is the right one? They both are. Now go back and figure out if the another was re-wound. This is kinda what Smock has been saying to me for years. The ability to know beyond a doubt that a motor is as specified by the rule set didn't exist. We were taking it on faith. Faith never bit us on the butt as far as I know. The FE crowd is pretty respectable in my experience but it did allow a shadow of doubt to creep into the race results. Others looked at the results and said hmmmmmmm.

.

I can understand this. I didn't realize how many people were rewinding motors or altering them.

I see the other thread looking for weights and sizes. To me its not possible to cover everything.

A well made aqua 2030kv motor worked for years, until quality dropped. I would use that as my baseline of what can fit and work. It was 57mm and about 210 grams. So now people want to also include the tp motors. Ok, a tp is 58mm and 270 grams. So make it simple. 270 grams 36.50x60.00mm or less. Done.
That rules out a Leopard 3660 because its 60.2mm. So be it. You can't fit everything out there. And shouldn't have to. Thats why its limited.

Ken Haines

02-19-2018, 07:13 PM

"Yer Lordship" lol Wonder if we can make that stick? You know, once he earns it...:laugh:

I like it.....hope we can remember that name afterwards at the bar.
Maybe we can even get the name printed on the pads of butter.
Thx for coming up with that Doug, I'm sure now he is glad to be on your team.....lol
:bounce:

ray schrauwen

02-19-2018, 07:18 PM

Sounds good Steve. If Ray Presnell can set a record with an off the shelf PB motor at Vegas, who needs to go all out?

As my Gold cans wear out I've invested in the Blue cans, just need some soft water to try them out.

I watched the hard work that Darin and others put in and made a choice based on that.

Thank you all, looking forward to running soon.

CraigP

02-19-2018, 08:20 PM

T.S.Davis

02-19-2018, 08:35 PM

Craig, that's what's so fun about the spec classes. Those veterans will tell you how to go faster. "Sharpen this, sand that down, try a 4255 but pitch the ears on it." I've tweaked props for guys on site. Sometimes the new guys think of something that sounds insane............then you think on it.......holy crap let's try that.

Steven, it's not that a lot were being rewound necessarily. I mentioned that for the most part FE characters are straight up peeps. My point was that I couldn't prove it either way. I couldn't prove a motor had been rewound and I couldn't prove it hadn't either. Imagine a record was set and then some questioned the validity of the record since verifying the motor was impossible.

Let the data collection happen and an educated guess will present itself.

Doby

02-19-2018, 08:59 PM

dethow

02-19-2018, 09:31 PM

I wish there was a limited class that only had 2-year rookie drivers. All the veterans get in there, hop their stuff up, and just make mince meat out of newbies. I have the same beef with nascar letting Cup drivers compete in Infinity series. Maybe you have tried a class like that in the past and it didn’t work out.

You do not need to really hop up anything to win.

Agreed Doby…
In MMEU we have newbies with fast boats on the water, but the veterans make mincemeat of them because of driving skills. Then we have had a newbie with fast boats who made mincemeat of some veterans since he lives 2 miles from our pond and was out there turning laps every opportunity he could. He's not considered a newbie anymore. Not because he's as good as the veterans at setting up a boat, but because he can drive with them.

T.S.Davis

02-19-2018, 10:17 PM

Dave, you should see him race cars. Brutal.

dethow

02-19-2018, 10:32 PM

Dave, you should see him race cars. Brutal.

I think we may be thinking of different people Terry. I've got Ken B on my mind. I think you are referring to Chris F.

But either way... we are now confusing newbies that have both turned out great racing seasons with good driving skills against veterans.

Doug Smock

02-19-2018, 10:37 PM

Craig Terry is right. (Dang did I just type that? On open forum? Really?:tongue:) Show up to the pond with a boat that isn't where it should be and see what happens. Just pick one, you don't need all those guys in your pits!!
Driving in traffic is another thing. Fixing end point adjustments and wheel time will fix that. I don't know why guys think rudders need to swing like barn doors...

raptor347

02-20-2018, 01:30 AM

Now we're talking. It's one of the things I love about this hobby. Once you get past the keyboard :thumbup:, it's an incredibly helpful group.

I'm going to run blue cans in spec and TP's in open this June. If I get out motored in spec, so be it.

The one thing I think we can all agree on is not letting the performance get out of hand, it's not the point of the class. We'll collect a bit more data and see if we can get it righter (I don't know if there is a right). Losing a few options on the long/heavy end will hurt the class less in the long run than allowing the power level to keep creeping away on us.

We have open motor classes if you want insane power.

T.S.Davis

02-20-2018, 06:27 AM

But either way... we are now confusing newbies that have both turned out great racing seasons with good driving skills against veterans.

Truth. Look how far Kevin has come too. 2 seasons and he's winning. Brode had never owned a boat when we met him a couple years ago. He'd never even thought about toy boats. We hosted a race at the lodge where he was a worker bee. Now he's an adict.

For those wondering how they got there so quickly.......they ask questions. We give them our best old guy guesses. No secrets in FE. Not really. Kevin expressed an interest, bought the parts, and I built his first boat frr noth'n. The vets want you to be as fast as they are. More fun to battle with a guy than to bury him. 6 laps running fer your life vs running by yourself.

longballlumber

02-20-2018, 07:16 AM

I would probably suggest the names I am currently being called is covering the entire spectrum; good to bad. However, I can guarantee that my wife has called me worse at times! :laugh::tongue:

longballlumber

02-20-2018, 07:21 AM

T.S.Davis

02-20-2018, 08:12 AM

That's the way I remember it too Mike. TP actually lists a V1 and V2 version in the data sheet.

There for a while if you ordered a Neu and they didn't have the right can on the shelf they just stuffed your order in the can they had available. I have a crazy looking 22 series like that. There's about 3/4" of dead space in there.

T.S.Davis

02-20-2018, 08:16 AM

Hmmm About 8mm shorter on the mod 1515 2200kv but same weight. Not sure what to make of that.

HTVboats

02-20-2018, 09:45 AM

Maybe to simplify things the rules would incorporate and allow an FE Director and a select committee of say 4-6 actual FE racers could review and update yearly an approved motor list staying in the 36X61 mm range. Right now the list is out of touch with available motors. That way review is built into rule structure.
Mic

Ken Haines

02-20-2018, 10:03 AM

I pulled this attachment from the measurements thread.

I was looking at the lengths that Dave provided a little closer this morning. Did you notice the NEU 1412 3D is 61mm long. The other 1412's are 55mm long, but they all nearly weigh the same.

The other thing I noticed was the his 1409 2Y is the SAME length as a couple of the 1412's

I seem to recall at least 2 (maybe 3) where TP shipped or manufactured cans of different lengths.

Just an observation.

Hi Mike,
Just ran the 1412-3D(61mm) Sunday that I bought from Dave (brand New), actually had not even gotten
to fill Dave in on these results yet. I had my same set-up and prop as when I run the Dynamite 1500.
I do not want to give away my whole set-up, however I probably have 50+ heats on my P-Ltd mono.
That 1412-3D is 1650kv. It ran pretty much the same speed as the Dyn 1500 I know for sure
because my son's boat is absolutely identical same speed too. We ran pretty much neck and neck on the
straightaways just like when I run the 1500. This dissappointed me a little as I had hoped it would have
been slightly faster with the 150Kv addition. When I was done with a 1 mile run (8-Laps on 1/8th course)
and brought the boat in it was really hot and now the windings are pretty brown kind of half smoked.
I realize this is not absolutely technical, but kind of proved not to be a better motor than the Dyn 1500.
I will note that the 1412-1.5y does seem to be better than this 3D. Could be the old Y's run cooler and
more efficient than D's theory.
Hope this helps, just wanted to provide some info for you....yer Lordship....lol
Thx,
Ken :bounce:

dethow

02-20-2018, 10:15 AM

Mike and Terry,
I know guys... there are some weird things there. For that reason, all of the Neu motors I have will be coming to the meeting on Saturday so that Mike can check all the measurements and weights.

I no longer have the Spec 1415 that was 70.1 mm long. That motor was sent back to Neu as a guinea pig. I have asked Steve Vaccaro to provide some measurements on that motor (since he stocks them) for some verification on what I had.
Steve, if you are seeing this... there is a list of additional motors on the measurements thread.

I also no longer have the 1409 or 1410 motors. I believe the explanation on why some of the 1412 motors are in a similar 55mm long can, like the 1409... is because Neu made a slight mistake when building the 1412 1.5Y and 2.5D motors. They were ordered to be at the spec 61mm and one day they called and said there was a mistake made on the cans and would it matter if they were under 61mm. I didn't care as long as they were under 62mm. You know? Anyway… I think those 1412 motors basically got crammed into what they normally use for the 1409.

Those 1412s coming at that short length is what sparked my thought of the 1415 being cut down to fit 62mm. So Neu then made a mistake on the 1412 3D motors and shipped them to me at 68mm long. When they had me ship those back for correction I used the opportunity to have them cut down the 1415, I already had. Since they were already going to be setting up machinery for cutting about 8mm out of a motor... Why not? It worked so I placed an order for additional 1415s.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

T.S.Davis

02-20-2018, 11:53 AM

I'll look through my stockpile. I pitched a bunch of motors late season. Mostly SSS motors loose.

Steven Vaccaro

02-20-2018, 12:49 PM

Darin Jordan

02-20-2018, 03:36 PM

When I was done with a 1 mile run (8-Laps on 1/8th course)
and brought the boat in it was really hot and now the windings are pretty brown kind of half smoked.

Ken, if you tried to run a 4-Pole, 1650KV motor, using the same prop as the Dynamite 1500, 6-Pole motor, then I can explain your "brown" windings... Wrong prop for the job, my friend. :) Definitely not "apples to apples".

Get into Brian's "magic prop box", and the results would have been different. I'm certain of it.

T.S.Davis

02-20-2018, 06:06 PM

Nobody listens to us Darin. Haha

Doug Smock

02-20-2018, 08:36 PM

Nobody listens to us Darin. Haha

They're learning...:laugh::tongue::hug1:

NativePaul

02-21-2018, 04:02 AM

An outsiders view here, take it or leave it.

It seems that you are trying to limit power by using the motor as a fuse, and are having issues with people pushing the motor too hard and blowing them, motors changing spec within production, and going out of production, but it looks like if you open the motor spec up
to allow decent non RTR motors, you will allow full on P power with it, which is likely to kill either the limited or the full P class.

Have you thought about limiting the power electronically, instead of with a very expensive fuse? https://neumotors.cartloom.com/storefront/product/v3-sae-limiter-2017-18 From what I gather 1KW is a decent but fairly conservative power for P Ltd, that should not result in lots of blown RTR motors, even if you didn't get one from "the magic batch", you could open it up to any motor, and while expensive books will have a slight efficiency advantage, the difference will be a heck of a lot less than the difference between 2 people with the exact same motor, one of which runs conservatively as they need it to last for years, and one who poo uses the limits as they don't mind burning one now and again.

I haven't used the above device, I just saw it and thought of you guys, maybe it is the answer to your prayers, maybe due to the peaky nature of boat power vs the steady power of an aeroplane it can't work, or maybe New could do some mods and make it work.

In Naviga are just going away from using our batteries as fuses and are using electronic energy limiters instead, which is perfect for us as we have a set run time, but with the right energy limit set could work for you too, if boats are too peaky for a power limit to be feasible. There are 3 manufacturers of boat energy limiters, and they have 2 years of national level testing behind them, but are just being legalised internationally this year. China race to Naviga rules too, so I expect we will see an energy limiter come out of China at a lower price point than the European made ones before too long.

Doug Smock

02-21-2018, 07:36 AM

Hi Paul,
Yes sir ''The motor is the fuse" mentality is what got this party started. Current limiters and fuses have been beat to death through the years.

https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52751-P-Limited-WHAT-is-the-INTENT&highlight=the+motor+is+the+fuse
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?54072-P-LTD-Maga-Fuse-Limited-AMPs-Thoughts
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?48231-NAMBA-P-Ltd-Motor-discussion
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52649-P-Limited-Motors-Im-going-to-jump-on-the-hot-seat
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?58608-(Moved)Another-P-Limited-Spec-motor-discussion
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?49779-IMPBA-D4-P-Limited-Guidelines-for-2015

And it goes on and on......

Mr. Ball ( Yer FE Lordship:wink:) is on a path that may be viable and long lasting. If he finds that it's not the case my hope is that he advises the IMPBA BOD to run, not walk away from this. Many of us have been managing these classes just fine. Without a National Rule set!!

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.

It's hard to argue with Brian here. When is enough, enough?

Don't forget there is more of the above here http://www.rumrunnerracing.com/feforums/index.php
And here...http://www.intlwaters.com/index.php?act=idx
:frusty::bash::doh::rules::olleyes:

Ken Haines

02-21-2018, 09:38 AM

Ken, if you tried to run a 4-Pole, 1650KV motor, using the same prop as the Dynamite 1500, 6-Pole motor, then I can explain your "brown" windings... Wrong prop for the job, my friend. :) Definitely not "apples to apples".

Thanks Darin......I guess when I hear Terry talking about the 6-pole advantage I need to listen better &
put more thought on the subject. Btw Terry or Darin, which motors brands are currently 6-pole ?
Feel a little dumb now, but guess I have learned something, otherwise it would have had a pretty valid test.
To others reading this do not be confused about us having burnt motor issues, we are not, it was a test
and I definetely was not worried about the outcome, just wanted to drop something into my existing set-up
so that I did not waste this spring re-testing props. Thought the results would lessen the fears of the 1412's.

Great thread....lets keep the positive energy going on this and
hopefully fix the little bump in the road and fly with most of the
original proposal plus the soon to be determined weight limit revision.
Then lets get back to racing !
:bounce:

Darin Jordan

02-21-2018, 09:57 AM

It's hard to argue with Brian here. When is enough, enough?

Doug,

With all due respect, P-LTD is the biggest set of classes out there. If not for this format, exactly how many FE racers do you think you'd actually have??

I know it's a pain right now, but it's hard to argue that the basic idea is working. You just need to stop focusing on the chaff, and focus on the actual root of the matter.

Sorry, but it's silly to just say "let it die", when there are entire clubs, and a good chunk of the National FE program, subscribing to this format of power systems.

T.S.Davis

02-21-2018, 09:59 AM

Doug, if you want to have an FE nats (some of us still like those) moving forward you have to include the power level that brings the boys to the pond.

You also need Joe new guy that's surf'n the web, to find the IMPBA rule book, sift through and find classes that there are actually boats running in. Heats to land in. So......racing can happen. Right now, a guy opens the book, see's 4 pages on brushed N1 motors and figures that's a great place to start. "Hey, I got a whole box of those old motors! Woohoo!" Or he builds a 2s open boat thinking it will be a cheap way to get going. Been 8 years since I heat raced one. I have 6 on the rack still. Or he could maybe build a 70mph P rigger on the cheap. Good place to start? Open racing is fine for some but based on the many guys I've personally trained/mentored/whatever ya call it..................P is a horrible place to start. I've got guys that have raced for a few years now that can barely handle limited.

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.

Doug and I both agree with Brian. This is the path Mike is currently helping us navigate. I'm more confident than I have been in a while that we're getting somewhere.

Darin Jordan

02-21-2018, 10:34 AM

Thanks Darin......I guess when I hear Terry talking about the 6-pole advantage I need to listen better &
put more thought on the subject. Btw Terry or Darin, which motors brands are currently 6-pole ?

Ken, the only 6-Pole motors I know of are the current list, plus the SSS/Pro Marine Motor. May be more out there, but these are the ones I know about.

As for the 4-Pole vs. 6, my guess is that the Neu was pulling 20-30 Amps more to turn that same prop. With the 4-Poles, you need to unload them a bit and let them spin.

Don't feel "dumb"... only reason I know this is because I saw it first-hand on the test bench.

dethow

02-21-2018, 10:34 AM

…but it looks like if you open the motor spec up to allow decent non RTR motors, you will allow full on P power with it, which is likely to kill either the limited or the full P class.
Actually this is specifically why a weight limit is being discussed and examined. So that full on P power does NOT make its way into the class. Otherwise, from what MMEU has seen along with what we’ve heard elsewhere, opening up the class to more motor options is not going to hurt the limited/spec classes or the full P class. Speeds are not drastically different from what they were.

I'm more confident than I have been in a while that we're getting somewhere.
I think that feeling is running through most of us. Not only are we getting somewhere, but I think the end result is going to be very inclusive and long lasting. And although not as easy to tech as simple dimensions only... there will still be a black and white techable rule in place that will be far less invasive then what several other groups are put through.
Group hugs! :hug1:

Doug Smock

02-21-2018, 11:01 AM

LOL Terry, I know, I know.. Just saying. Rally around Mike. If it doesn't pan out it's past time to drive on. These discussions have turned more potential racers away than a National rule set would ever bring to the pond. The MMEU proved you can offer these classes without a National rule set. Thanks for that! Yes let's everyone focus on what Mike is doing and put this to bed one way or the other!!

Darin Jordan

02-21-2018, 11:26 AM

Rally around Mike.

GO, MIKE, GO!!! :banana:

longballlumber

02-21-2018, 11:37 AM

Doug, if you want to have an FE nats (some of us still like those) moving forward you have to include the power level that brings the boys to the pond.

This is happening in 2018 and the class wasn’t in the rule book. What makes you think it can’t or won’t happen in the future?

You also need Joe new guy that's surf'n the web, to find the IMPBA rule book, sift through and find classes that there are actually boats running in. Heats to land in. So......racing can happen.

I am not saying it can’t happen, but I am willing to stick my neck out there and suggest this would be the exception rather than the rule. Joe new guy goes to the hobby shop, plops down some money, and walks out with a new toy only to find OUT later people actually race them. We have current IMPBA members that probably don’t even read the rule book. Hell, I need to read it again. Suggesting that Joe new guy is going to read the rule book, and magically show up at a local pond ready to race is a pretty big leap.

The IMPBA has NEVER had a P-limited or P-Spec rule set in the national rule book. I don’t think that has kept anyone away from the hobby. If they want to race boats they are going to figure out how to race boats.

Right now, a guy opens the book, see's 4 pages on brushed N1 motors and figures that's a great place to start. "Hey, I got a whole box of those old motors! Woohoo!" Or he builds a 2s open boat thinking it will be a cheap way to get going. Been 8 years since I heat raced one. I have 6 on the rack still. Or he could maybe build a 70mph P rigger on the cheap. Good place to start?
Sorry Terry, but N Stock and N Super Stock is still active at the record trials level. As a matter of fact, it was being run just a few weeks ago.

Besides, what new guy is going to read 4 pages on brushed motors and WANT to get into that class. 4 pages of rules makes me want to avoid that class! LOL :tt2: I believe there are provisions in the rules that allow ROAR approved motors. If that is the case, brushless motors are approved. I would need to read up to be 100% sure.

N is the still active, as well, at the record trials level. Heck, you and Ty were running N class for records just 3 years(?) ago. I would need to double check, but I think there is a club that is actively running some sort of N class.

With this type of activity how do we just abolish the class along with records associated with it?

Open racing is fine for some but based on the many guys I've personally trained/mentored/whatever ya call it..................P is a horrible place to start. I've got guys that have raced for a few years now that can barely handle limited.

I find some irony in this statement. The MMEU club is running more “Full P” classes than it ever has.

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.

Doug and I both agree with Brian. This is the path Mike is currently helping us navigate. I'm more confident than I have been in a while that we're getting somewhere.

I think we all agree that any “Spec” and or “Limited” WILL NOT be allowed for records. The BOD has already shown the ability to approve an FE Nats allowing the host club to include a “Spec” or “Limited” power source for a national award. With those two items addressed, what other benefits does the IMPBA get by adding a Spec or Limited Rule Set?

T.S.Davis

02-21-2018, 01:57 PM

Thought about typing this with no capitals so it didn't sound like I was yelling in any way. Cuz I aint.

Encouraging guys to build 2s powered boats so they can do 6 to 10 laps per year isn't going to help guys get involved in racing. Time trials is a very tiny niche piece of racing. I checked. It was 2015 that Ty ran N sport. So yes 3 years ago. The fact that I personally own multiple N boats is not an indication that the class is active and flourishing. I'm a super freak. My collection isn't normal. Haines picked up boats from the fastest 2s stock guy in the world and handed them off to Fede while he learns. That's not normal either. It's also not an indication that the class is "active". We were barely able to field heats at the nationals which is supposed to be the "big" race of the year.

The BOD allowed spec classes at a nats because the numbers don't lie. Without them "allowing" it there would be no FE nats for 2018. Pretty sure they knew that.

MMEU is up to one P class for points. We did try to run P mono for exhibition at 4 races. In truth I discouraged guys when P mono was first talked about. I didn't think many of our drivers could handle it. They did better than I thought they would though. By the end of the season we weren't getting enough entries for it. We used to run Q for points but Q was too hairy on our puddle. I don't think we've ever had more than one full P class for points.

The point of having a national rule set is that clubs, both new and old, would have a point of reference if/when they decide to form some FE heats. Then when the new guy shows up with that boat he walked out of the hobby shop with.........maybe......there is a chance............. he'll find that a club is running what he bought. Then if/when racers decide to see what's going on in the next town they might maybe find........."hey them guys run the same crap we run". Then if/when those same guys inquire about traveling to race like the a Spring nats............."wonder what they run there? What? Same stuff? Heck ya! We should go."

My mindset in suggesting that 2s should go away and basically be replaced by spec is formation of heats. N does not make heats. Spec does. It's really that simple. Make N a trials only thing like S or something.

I totally do not agree with spec not being allowed for records. Why not? Back when we were struggling with the tech aspect I agreed but length x width x weight isn't sounding too horrible to check. Especially the way Mike described it. We just established we're going to keep all the N classes forever because they're run at trials one or two times per year. But........the most popular FE power level since the battery...............no records. Can't understand that.

I'm so confused by the opposition to these classes at the national level. They're so clearly the most contested FE classes in NAMBA. It aint close either. They're also the most popular FE classes in IMPBA. IMPBA events run under rules they don't actually have. We have to check every time we travel what rules they'll run. What am I missing?

Doug Smock

02-21-2018, 02:11 PM

The BOD disagrees..... End of story... I'm out fellas. Behave yourselves..

T.S.Davis

02-21-2018, 02:20 PM

The BOD disagrees..... End of story... I'm out fellas. Behave yourselves..

With what Doug?

NativePaul

02-21-2018, 02:30 PM

Hi Paul,
Yes sir ''The motor is the fuse" mentality is what got this party started. Current limiters and fuses have been beat to death through the years.

https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52751-P-Limited-WHAT-is-the-INTENT&highlight=the+motor+is+the+fuse
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?54072-P-LTD-Maga-Fuse-Limited-AMPs-Thoughts
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?48231-NAMBA-P-Ltd-Motor-discussion
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52649-P-Limited-Motors-Im-going-to-jump-on-the-hot-seat
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?58608-(Moved)Another-P-Limited-Spec-motor-discussion
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?49779-IMPBA-D4-P-Limited-Guidelines-for-2015

And it goes on and on......

I just read those links and while there is a fair few references to fuses I didnt see any results from trying one which isnt surprising as they have some obvious drawbacks, and the only reference to electronic power or energy limiters was by me, 3 years ago, when energy limiters were still just a concept. At this point 3 years down the line, they have peen prototyped, tested, been produced by 3 different manufacturers, and their production units have been tested and have proven themselves and the system well enough to have made the rules in many individual countries, and in Naviga.

An electronic limiter is a very different beast to a fuse:
They don't add huge amounts of resistance to your circuit.
They aren't being pushed to near melting point.
The purchase price is higher, but you dont need to replace one every time you push the limits.
They come either with silicone wires for your connectors or conectors presoldered and dont need holders, they can easily be wired in like dataloggers (which they essentially are).
They wont just cut of motor power causing rear end collisions, they all have a pass-through to the ESC so they can ramp down the power over time, all the curently available energy limiters have a selectable ramp down time.
2/3 of the energy limiters can ramp down to a selectable baseline, so if you want people to have for example 10% power for steerage so they can keep inside the course on a windy day you can do that.
The energy limiters have a reactivation timer so that eg 90 seconds after it ramps down your power, it gives you power back, enabling you to drive back in, avoiding the need for rescue.
The energy limiters all have 4 different selectable power levels, by default they will come with the Naviga legal levels, but those limits are subject to change so they are programable either at the factory on purchase or via a box available to racemasters, so you could have different ones for P ltd, P ltd Offshore, a cheaper N2 ltd (to replace N2 that P ltd seems to have killed off), and maybe Q ltd for the newer 6s RTRs with 40mm cans that cant make it in full Q.

NativePaul

02-21-2018, 02:36 PM

Blah blah, I could waffle on for hours, but probably shouldn't.

dethow

02-21-2018, 03:10 PM

I probably know way too little to voice an opinion on this, but I will anyway.

What Terry is saying makes sense regarding a national rule set for a “spec” class and having records for them. They are very popular and WILL get the largest draw.

And I can’t understand the thought process behind just letting local clubs have their own “spec” rules and having IMPBA approve each clubs take on “spec” prior to a national event such as the one MMEU is holding this year.
This just adds unnecessary costs to visiting racers and an advantage to the host club racers. If each club has their own rules, traveling racers may have to keep changing their motors to accommodate different rules. And the host club will have the advantage due to having had much more time spent running and setting up their boats to those motors.

I don’t know the answer to this, but I’d assume a goal of the IMPBA BODs should be to make the club desirable so that more clubs/members are drawn in.
IF IMPBA does nothing and IF NAMBA moves forward with changes to the limited class and let’s assume they go with the diameter x length x weight… they will have a simple national rule set that is run at local and national levels along with records for all the ensuing classes from those rulers. Result will be that NAMBA will be the more desirable association for FE racing. No doubt about it.

T.S.Davis

02-21-2018, 03:36 PM

The BOD disagrees..... End of story... I'm out fellas. Behave yourselves..

BTW The BOD didn't disagree with everything that was proposed by MMEU.

2s for ever and ever amen.
1/8 scale motor list stays.
1/8 registration stays.
Twins will still require a single battery source same as before. So two batteries get harnessed to be one and then get split to two esc.

Stuff that stuck.....sort of....
Requiring FE boats to be on plane at 30 seconds will have a 20 second option. Currently if you are not moving at the 30 second mark you did not start.
On spec, my understanding is that guys were actually well versed on it but in the end felt it needed more work. The weight thing seems a good addition to me. For the record, I was totally against that but Mike has done a pretty good job convincing me. Although I'm still not certain it's actually something IMPBA wants.

raptor347

02-21-2018, 08:48 PM

We really are working our way to a new class, it will just include what we've all been running for the last 8-10 years.

I didn't agree with P-ltd for records in NAMBA because there was no way to truly tech the motors. I'd be happy if they were deleted from the record book under the current rules, and I own several of them.

Spec motors at time trials are absolutely the fuse, no choice, no argument. Better off spending the money on a real motor and running an open class for TT's (sound familiar Ken, how many N stock motors?).

Had a good talk with Mike (your FE Lordship), we're heading in a good direction.

photohoward1

02-21-2018, 08:54 PM

Requiring FE boats to be on plane at 30 seconds will have a 20 second option. Currently if you are not moving at the 30 second mark you did not start.
On spec, my understanding is that guys were actually well versed on it but in the end felt it needed more work. The weight thing seems a good addition to me. For the record, I was totally against that but Mike has done a pretty good job convincing me. Although I'm still not certain it's actually something IMPBA wants.

Why only electric for this requirement? The Gassers in Atlanta would crawl to the line at idle. Drove me crazy. They call it the Cajun Crawl. (for another thread I guess)

dethow

02-21-2018, 10:59 PM

I didn't agree with P-ltd for records in NAMBA because there was no way to truly tech the motors. I'd be happy if they were deleted from the record book under the current rules, and I own several of them.

Taking this statement and trying to say this is why IMPBA should not allow a limited/spec class to have records is unfair. Brian is saying he didn’t agree with the NAMBA P-ltd records because can’t tech the motors. True and fair statement. But that statement doesn’t apply if we end up with a measurements and weight rule. There WOULD be a way to truly tech the motors. It’d be easier and less invasive to tech then some gas/nitro classes… but yet they have rules and records.
This feels like discrimination… Just sayin’ :hide:

dethow

02-21-2018, 11:54 PM

These discussions have turned more potential racers away than a National rule set would ever bring to the pond.
99% of the potential racers have no idea these discussions are taking place. And I’d wager that 90% of actual current racers also have no idea these discussions are taking place.
Not everyone hates these discussions as much as you do Doug. Do we want them to be done? Of course… but that doesn’t mean we hate them. We’re trying to fix flaws and get to a better place. A BETTER place… not a PERFECT place. Perfect doesn’t exist.
I’m sure there are some opinions of flaws in the gas/nitro class rules. Does that mean IMPBA shouldn’t have national rules and records for them? Because that’s where we are basically at. There is a possible rule set on the table that is 100% techable and it’s starting to sound like IMPBA is going to shoot it down and defiantly won’t allow records because there will be some opinions of flaws.

The MMEU proved you can offer these classes without a National rule set.
Sorry… but literally the only thing MMEU has proven is that there is a way to use a dominant motor within the simple dimensions rule. And what are the clubs going to do??? Just say no Neu 1415 motors allowed? Then someone cuts down a Lehner 1940, then a TP3640, and so on… until all the clubs have a long list of excluded motors. Great, until someone says the hell with them I’ll build my own. Then what? Do we say no custom built motors? Talk about not techable… We might as well just have a list of motors which are allowed. Sound familiar and flawed?
That’s what MMEU has proven. No offense intended to MMEU guys. I’m the a-hole in MMEU who shined light on this.:moon:

raptor347

02-22-2018, 03:21 AM

Dave,
For what it's worth, I'm certainly not upset that you flipped the light switch. IMPBA has the advantage of not having a flawed (but very successful) rule set on the books. By advantage I mean they can be a more agile when it comes to fine tuning the class. That being said, we're moving forward to get the best class we can.

For the record, my issue with stock/spec FE classes for time trials is the nature of those event's. They are by definition, event's where you REALLY push equipment. When played at the bleeding edge, running spec/stock classes is the most efficient way to turn money into smoke. I've seen an awful lot of P-ltd charcoal produced chasing those records at NAMBA events. Much of the reputation for poor reliability came out of that. But who am I to tell people how to spend their money. If it ever did get opened up for records, I know just the motor to build.

Everybody,
Considering this is the class we throw all our newbie racers in (not to be confused with "beginners class", there's nothing beginner about it), there's a line of thought that dropping the performance a bit wouldn't be the worst possible outcome. Before everyone screams at me, a quick history refresher, consider the following: If you look at the performance we're getting from out current spec boats and compare it to what we were getting out of full P systems 10 years ago, would you be shocked to know our current spec boats are faster? The thought of handing a new racer a hot P mono was pretty scary back then. I believe it was 2002 (might be 2000) when the first FE boat broke 80 mph, with 32 NiMH cells (40 odd volts), a big Schulze esc and a big lehner motor. I can do that today with my heat race spec rigger with only a prop change and a set of slippery sponsons. The same hull goes 140mph with a full P system. Point is, we've lost perspective on the kind of performance we should expect.

My first experiment with spec power was to drop the original SV-27 motor and esc into my then record holding N2 rigger (Pags still races that hull as a P-ltd). It ran 54 mph, this was 2007 and it was seriously cool for a dirt cheap brushless system that was very reliable. Then comes the infamous UL-1 motor and up goes the performance. My current spec rigger will heat race right at 62 mph. Yes, hulls and props have changed (point your fingers at me if you must, I probably deserve it), but does the extra 8 mph make the racing better? For those that were there, how good was the racing in LSH at 42 mph and LSO at 37?

We're going fast enough in the spec classes now that it can be intimidating to new racers and far more difficult than many veteran racers want to admit. There are many reasons the open class participation has decreased over the last 10 years. Expense is one, but entry cost for capable equipment has come down significantly. I'd argue that the raw performance gains are a big part of it, even a really good P or Q hydro is a serious handful. Check the vids Tyler posted from Valdosta Speed Week, that's his Q heat race boat.

I truly hate the statement "in the spirit of" when applied to racing (scale guys drive me nuts with that one), but in this case it applies. We've all enjoyed what has been a pretty level playing field in the spec class. The big goal in all this is to maintain that while opening up the motor options.

The point of this rant is to get people to consider what holding the power level where it is will do for the future of the class (and FE in general). In the long run, our default entry class will be healthier for it, and still be just as much fun.

OK, body armor strapped on under flame suit. I'm ready!!! :Peace_Sign:

CraigP

02-22-2018, 09:24 AM

Ahhh, at last an island of sanity in a sea of insanity! You hit the nail right on the head Bryan. It will be interesting to see if others see the wisdom in your words. These classes should be about driving and setup skills, not who can squirrel around with a motor the best...

ray schrauwen

02-22-2018, 10:22 AM

You will never get the USA to conform to the NWO of electric boat racing. Never I say!!!!
:laugh::buttrock:

An outsiders view here, take it or leave it.

It seems that you are trying to limit power by using the motor as a fuse, and are having issues with people pushing the motor too hard and blowing them, motors changing spec within production, and going out of production, but it looks like if you open the motor spec up
to allow decent non RTR motors, you will allow full on P power with it, which is likely to kill either the limited or the full P class.

Have you thought about limiting the power electronically, instead of with a very expensive fuse? https://neumotors.cartloom.com/storefront/product/v3-sae-limiter-2017-18 From what I gather 1KW is a decent but fairly conservative power for P Ltd, that should not result in lots of blown RTR motors, even if you didn't get one from "the magic batch", you could open it up to any motor, and while expensive books will have a slight efficiency advantage, the difference will be a heck of a lot less than the difference between 2 people with the exact same motor, one of which runs conservatively as they need it to last for years, and one who poo uses the limits as they don't mind burning one now and again.

I haven't used the above device, I just saw it and thought of you guys, maybe it is the answer to your prayers, maybe due to the peaky nature of boat power vs the steady power of an aeroplane it can't work, or maybe New could do some mods and make it work.

In Naviga are just going away from using our batteries as fuses and are using electronic energy limiters instead, which is perfect for us as we have a set run time, but with the right energy limit set could work for you too, if boats are too peaky for a power limit to be feasible. There are 3 manufacturers of boat energy limiters, and they have 2 years of national level testing behind them, but are just being legalised internationally this year. China race to Naviga rules too, so I expect we will see an energy limiter come out of China at a lower price point than the European made ones before too long.

Doby

02-22-2018, 11:11 AM

About the motor being used as the "fuse"...when has it ever not been?

Scenario:
Stock Motley Crew Cat...
1)Must go faster in order to be "competitive"...install an AQ 2030 (or whatever the motor dejour is)..after-all, more kv always equals more speed...that helps.
2) Must go faster...install a BIG prop...that helps. (nothing in the rules says I can't)
3) Must go faster.. add 500 amp esc to handle load of big prop...that helps. (nothing in the rules says I can't)
4) Must go faster...buy 400C batteries...that helps.(nothing in the rules says I can't)
5) Must go faster...carve out the "heavy" tub and add carbon fiber to save weight...that helps (nothing in the rules says I can't)
6) Prove I'm now faster...place boat on water, hit the throttle and pray!

Surprise...guess what the only thing that blow is...THE MOTOR!:blink:
I can't for the life of me figure out why the motor blew???????:olleyes:

Solution..
1) Start a thread on the internet about the motor dejour's apparent unreliability.
2) Sit back and watch the sheep on the internet jump on the bandwagon, well, for the simple reason that its on the internet and everyone knows, if its on the net..its gotta be true!

Actual Truth: The motor is ALWAYS the fuse as people will ALWAYS try and get the most out of it. As its the only thing that is "spec'd" and can't be changed it will always be considered the fuse.

Want a simple solution to burning up motors?

Look in the mirror.:ohmy:

T.S.Davis

02-22-2018, 01:24 PM

Come on John. We're not going to revisit the motor failures.

There actually was an issue with AQ motors. Different lots had different thickness wires. That's a real thing.
Proboat actually did discontinue motors and/or replace them with new versions requiring rule changes.
The rule set actually did cater to two manufacturers and kept others out. Not deliberately but definitely resulted in them being denied. Other motors could be "allowed" at an event but that didn't make them legal forever and ever.
Those two sources absolutely do make decisions based one $$$ and not on our silly rules. (That wont change either)
Nobody actually could prove a motor was correct if asked to.

We blew it. It worked for a while but it was never quite right. Created havoc in the ranks too. Sure, we have done a ton of racing but.......... bad feelings exited too. Stuff I mentioned. Even made some guys get out of FE.

This new approach is smarter in my opinion.

Even still, there are guys so pissed that we are trying to make this work that they're talking about leaving FE. I'm completely lost on that. I've been through some rule dances over the years. All most all of them in fact. Getting out over this one? Make no sense to me. How about the intro of brushless motors? Throw away your whole fleet technology anyone? NiMh vs Nicd was a hoot.

NativePaul

02-22-2018, 01:57 PM

You will never get the USA to conform to the NWO of electric boat racing. Never I say!!!!
:laugh::buttrock:

I did not suggest you conform, I just sugested an alternative way of doing things that may or may not be better for you. If you noticed I linked to an American made power limiter that may well be suitable for the type of sprint racing you do, and not any of the energy limiters that are more suitable of the endurance racing we do (or the offshore racing that you do for that matter), I only mentioned them as they are a proven alternative if the power limiter can't be made to work in boats.

Oh and we've been racing FE in one form or another since well before Churchill coined the phrase NWO, or HG Wells re-appropriated it, maybe OWO would be more appropriate.
157226

CraigP

02-22-2018, 02:10 PM

Paul, this power limiter idea makes sense to me. But to the guys currently at the top in these limited classes, this would be very bad news. They like their advantage! But to me, this seems like the fair way to level the playing field. If the class had these, my interest in racing my UL-1 would go up considerably. Would help in not burning down batteries, esc’s and motors, thus saving in expenses. If you have other part numbers, could you share them? I would like to check these out... Thanks for bringing some new ideas to the table.

T.S.Davis

02-22-2018, 02:53 PM

They like their advantage!

What advantage? The fastest guys I know run $79 motors. Those guys aren't burning down motors, esc, and motors. Guys that are winning national championships are not burning down.

Doby

02-22-2018, 02:55 PM

Doby

02-22-2018, 02:56 PM

TheShaughnessy

02-23-2018, 03:09 AM

longballlumber

02-23-2018, 07:57 AM

T.S.Davis

02-23-2018, 08:13 AM

ray schrauwen

02-23-2018, 09:17 AM

I know Paul. Ivwas just kidding around. There are a few guys like Darin setting up mono1 etc to race internationally possibly, so there is hope!

I did not suggest you conform, I just sugested an alternative way of doing things that may or may not be better for you. If you noticed I linked to an American made power limiter that may well be suitable for the type of sprint racing you do, and not any of the energy limiters that are more suitable of the endurance racing we do (or the offshore racing that you do for that matter), I only mentioned them as they are a proven alternative if the power limiter can't be made to work in boats.

Oh and we've been racing FE in one form or another since well before Churchill coined the phrase NWO, or HG Wells re-appropriated it, maybe OWO would be more appropriate.
157226

dethow

02-23-2018, 09:43 AM

I have a couple questions. Who knows. Maybe Brian or Dave are still seeing these. If we rolled back the hands of time and proposed this class way back when with L x W x Weight...........would there have been any discussion of these rules for last 8 years or so? I personally think there wouldn't have been nearly the hand wringing. We also wouldn't have had this thread. If that's fair (at all) it begs another question.....................what's the down side to having a national rule set for these? What's the deterrent so to speak?

Mike had asked what the benefit to IMPBA was. Participation is the short answer. Participation is the only reason for any rule set at the hobby level. We could ask that of all the classes. What's the benefit of having rules for say Thunderboat or gas hydro, or sport 20? Guys wanted to race them together. Needed a guideline. Made sense. So why not just let the clubs decide what Thunderboat is? Give them a suggestion but let them do what ever? Why not do that?

For that matter.....................why have any national rules? It's a leading question obviously. The idea is for people to know what they're getting no matter where they race.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!
This is the leadership at IMPBA not wanting anyone to be upset with them. Snowflakes… This is a lack of leadership. Have some balls and write a rule instead of passing the buck down to districts and clubs. All so they (BOD) can say “Don’t complain to us. Not our rules.”

Terry, you hit the nail on the head. If a national rule for a class needs to have benefit to IMPBA outside of participation… I’ll expect to see ALL national rules abolished.

I’ve had it said to me by several different people over the past couple days that the BODs “thinks” they’re doing the right thing for IMPBA. NO… they don’t. They are doing what they “think” will cause the least amount of bitching to them. It’s that plain and simple.

A national rule would bring more conformity and thus more participation to the classes. Participation is what’s best for IMPBA and they’re missing the mark here.

I will not race under IMPBA moving forward if this continues to be their path. :thumbsdown:

dethow

02-23-2018, 10:13 AM

In regards to attracting Joe new guy, are any rtr boats coming with information about NAMBA or IMPBA? I just checked the UL19 manual and there is no mention of any racing, not sure if a separate page might be included. I know the only way I found out about organized racing was from either a flier or a page in the owners manual of my SV27. It read something like, when you get tired of boating on an open lake try making some buoys from milk jugs and racing around them. Still bored? Check out what organizations might be close to you, either NAMBA or IMPBA, boating with friends is always more fun.

I think the boat precedes the book.

Why would boat manufactures do anything to promote NAMBA or IMPBA? Those organizations do nothing to promote them…
The current format of NAMBA to promote RTR is go buy a RTR and either put in a slower motor to complete in P-ltd class or go buy a RTR and rip everything out for upgrades to complete in open P classes.
The current format of IMPBA to promote RTR is… nothing. Crickets singing to snowflakes falling from the sky.
Oh… wait I’m sorry, they may write a “Technical Bulletin” with recommendations for districts and clubs.

Both organizations have an opportunity to develop a new class which would bring participation from RTR boats. But both organizations aren’t showing much progress in the endeavor. So again… why would manufactures promote NAMBA or IMPBA?

Maybe that’s the answer, Terry… IMPBA would benefit from for a national rule because if they had something that was more inclusive to RTR manufactures they would have the ability to launch a campaign to get manufactures to promote their organization. Manufactures may be willing to put a flier in their boxes if that organization had a class which their boats could actually run out of the box.

But who am I kidding... I've been told by several people that NAMBA and IMPBA don't care about RTR and they're not going to write a rule to accommodate them. So again… why would manufactures promote NAMBA or IMPBA?

I think the bigger question here is... why are there many threads here on this forum regarding ways to bring participation up? But yet with the answer right in front of us, the 2 organizations are thumbing their nose up at the RTR manufactures. I believe the answer is because the 2 organizations don't really want more participation. They want a good-ole-boys club.

T.S.Davis

02-23-2018, 11:31 AM

I think the bigger question here is... why are there many threads here on this forum regarding ways to bring participation up? But yet with the answer right in front of us, the 2 organizations are thumbing their nose up at the RTR manufactures. I believe the answer is because the 2 organizations don't really want more participation. They want a good-ole-boys club.

I don't think that's fair Dave. I know these guys. Some of them personally. I did think that for a long time though. The more involved I got the less I thought that. I also used think they were just resistant to change. Stubborn. Whatever. Having been the guy to sift through the yuck I now think of it more as being protective. Cautious even.

I would label it a curious thing though. There is resistance to a spec set of rules. Is it the history? 10000 page of BS doesn't inspire anyone to want to even talk about spec. However, if we had done something like what we've been talking about of late........... right from the beginning I don't know if we would have 10000 pages of BS. Really would like to understand it. In my huge empty head.

Tom Kelly

02-23-2018, 11:52 AM

[QUOTE=dethow;710800]EXACTLY!!!!!!!
This is the leadership at IMPBA not wanting anyone to be upset with them. Snowflakes… This is a lack of leadership. Have some balls and write a rule instead of passing the buck down to districts and clubs. All so they (BOD) can say “Don’t complain to us. Not our rules.”

Have we met?

Don't you feel that we should take the time to make this as good as we possibly can? Let's give these guys some time to work out the problems that will give us the best not just for this season, but the future as well. I drove by the pond last night going to Bad Brad's......the water is still hard. It's still February.

Tom
D-2

T.S.Davis

02-23-2018, 11:57 AM

[QUOTE=dethow;710800]
Don't you feel that we should take the time to make this as good as we possibly can? Let's give these guys some time to work out the problems that will give us the best not just for this season, but the future as well. I drove by the pond last night going to Bad Brad's......the water is still hard. It's still February.

Tom
D-2

hehehe Hey Tom, sent you an email too. We're having a club meeting tomorrow. Nothing really pressing just bench race'n mostly. Stop by and have a beverage.

longballlumber

02-23-2018, 11:59 AM

I have a couple questions. Who knows. Maybe Brian or Dave are still seeing these. If we rolled back the hands of time and proposed this class way back when with L x W x Weight...........would there have been any discussion of these rules for last 8 years or so? I personally think there wouldn't have been nearly the hand wringing. We also wouldn't have had this thread. If that's fair (at all) it begs another question.....................what's the down side to having a national rule set for these? What's the deterrent so to speak?

It’s really hard to ignore the thousands of posts over multiple years regarding this topic: a large percentage of those posts being volatile and heated. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe one or several have publicly stated that NAMBA shouldn’t have allowed the class for records?! As the IMPBA continues to review a path forward we can’t turn a blind eye to these things.

Are we confident that in addition to the size limitation, a weight restriction is going to solve all of our P-Limited problems?! I don’t know. That’s what we are trying to examine and analyze. Base on history it makes for a fun successful class, but not without some serious baggage.

Mike had asked what the benefit to IMPBA was. Participation is the short answer. Participation is the only reason for any rule set at the hobby level.
I am asking this in as a serious question; do we not already have participation? Is there long list of racers waiting to enter the IMPBA and start racing as soon as we release a national rule set for P-Limited? If someone is going to tell me YES, then please help me to understand where those racers are.

We could ask that of all the classes. What's the benefit of having rules for say Thunderboat or gas hydro, or sport 20? Guys wanted to race them together. Needed a guideline. Made sense. So why not just let the clubs decide what Thunderboat is? Give them a suggestion but let them do what ever? Why not do that?

For that matter.....................why have any national rules? It's a leading question obviously. The idea is for people to know what they're getting no matter where they race.

IMO the answer is less about participation and more about controlling equality primarily focused on Time Trials and National events. All of those classes listed are available for TT’s. As soon as something goes into the book it’s one step short of being chiseled in stone. With that being said you’d better be darn sure you got it right, because it’s not coming out!

Just a note on Thunder Boat class; the rules for that class call out ONE motor from ONE manufacturer, not to mention there is a pretty substantial set of tech rules that go along with it. It seems to me we are trying to avoid something of that nature for P-Limited.

longballlumber

02-23-2018, 12:04 PM

I don't think that's fair Dave. I know these guys. Some of them personally. I did think that for a long time though. The more involved I got the less I thought that. I also used think they were just resistant to change. Stubborn. Whatever. Having been the guy to sift through the yuck I now think of it more as being protective. Cautious even.

I would label it a curious thing though. There is resistance to a spec set of rules. Is it the history? 10000 page of BS doesn't inspire anyone to want to even talk about spec. However, if we had done something like what we've been talking about of late........... right from the beginning I don't know if we would have 10000 pages of BS. Really would like to understand it. In my huge empty head.

HA HA HA Some sort of universe alignment just happed for a spit second. Be carful there might be another meteorite heading towards MI in both our directions! :laugh:

longballlumber

02-23-2018, 12:06 PM

I drove by the pond last night going to Bad Brad's......the water is still hard. It's still February.

Tom
D-2

Good to hear from you Tom. How was the BBQ? :thumbup1:

dethow

02-23-2018, 12:11 PM

Don't you feel that we should take the time to make this as good as we possibly can? Let's give these guys some time to work out the problems that will give us the best not just for this season, but the future as well. I drove by the pond last night going to Bad Brad's......the water is still hard. It's still February.

Tom
D-2

What you say makes sense, Tom.
That is, if it was the intention to work problems out and actually come up with a national rule. Problem is that I've been informed that its not the intention of IMPBA to have a national rule. Its their intent to write a “Technical Bulletin” with recommendations for districts and clubs to self govern and limited/spec motor classes.

And no, Tom. I don't believe we have met. Have you been to any MMEU meeting or races?

dethow

02-23-2018, 12:24 PM

I am asking this in as a serious question; do we not already have participation? Is there long list of racers waiting to enter the IMPBA and start racing as soon as we release a national rule set for P-Limited? If someone is going to tell me YES, then please help me to understand where those racers are.

Mike, You want a list of guys waiting to race as soon as we release a national rule set for P-Limited? Go to any hobby shop or spend a little more time at our pond. Guys and kids come around all the time asking what it takes to get involved. We race in a city park with youth baseball fields, for god sakes.

They glaze over when you start telling them they have to go buy a boat and then change the motor. Oh, and you’ll have to learn how to solder new connectors on because the allowable motors have junk stock connectors that will burn up and/or don’t match the esc of several RTR boats available.

We have several current RTR boats that are better than past years and that have better connectors already on them. But wait… those boats/motors aren’t allowed.

And why do you expect the veteran guys at local clubs to just make these classes and run them with no expectation of ever being able to runs these boats at national events or hold records? Is there a list of veterans waiting to spend their time and money on boats with the soul purpose of bringing in and cultivating new guys? Nope... the veterans want to build and race the boats they have at large events and that they can get their name in records books for racing well.