1/10 scale motor options... so now what?

[don ferrette]

Ok so it now appears all but one of the NAMBA approved motors for FE 1/10th scale got discontinued in what seemed to be a blink of the eye. We are trying to get the 1/10th scale class off the ground here in IMPBA D12 for the upcoming season and in a matters of a couple months we went from all to one left. I was urged by some to pattern the motor choices after NAMBA and when I did the initial research it seemed viable as availability was good and prices were excellent. Needless to say this is going to require me to rewrite the part of the rules regarding motors. I have always hated motor "lists" for the very reason of what just happened, I think diameter and length limits are the way to go. Simple, straightforward, easy to understand and tech. With that being said and looking at what's out there comparable and similar in cost (read cheap) to what just got discontinued I'm leaning towards a 36mm x 56mm size limit. Also toying with a 2000kv limit as well but not sold on that one. I would like some feedback on this as I need to make a decision and have the rule set done for our district meeting coming up soon in the new year.

[Doug Smock]

FWIW D13 went with 36.5 X 56.5 limit for 2019 and the foreseeable future.

[don ferrette]

FWIW D13 went with 36.5 X 56.5 limit for 2019 and the foreseeable future.
Thanks Doug! Is the .5mm to give a margin of error?

[Doug Smock]

Thanks Doug! Is the .5mm to give a margin of error?

Yes sir.

[raptor347]

I'm ignoring it until the NAMBA 1/10 scale guys decide they have a problem and do something about it. The PNW 1/10 scale clubs don't actually run the NAMBA rules anyway.

Honestly, I'd like to see them tied to the p-ltd motor rules for simplicities sake. Dimensional limits will work.

[Moonie]

Kv limit would just present another way to cheat.

[raptor347]

Agreed, seen it happen with the current motors.

[don ferrette]

Kv limit would just present another way to cheat.

Yeah I'm leaning away from that option. Am tossing around something like standard production motors only, no custom winds or factory mods from original.

[T.S.Davis]

Kv limit would just present another way to cheat.

Or a way for someone to say your cheating but have no means to prove it. They'll just assume and tell everyone they know that you are.

I'm with Brian. What ever the spec rules turns out to be just run that. 1500 will still a great choice but they will dry up. If you're asked about scale "Hey..... that looks fun. Can I play too?" Ya have to be able to point them to an easy answer or they wont be able to figure it out.

Curious though Doug. What are you expecting to see with another 3.5mm of motor? Not trying to start a brand new arguemnet. Honest. But 56.5 rules out:
all TP Motors
all Raider motors
all the Dynamite motors if you count the bearing cup which is machined as part of the can
all of the Leopard motors

The Neu 1412/2.5d is only 55mm depending on what can it was stuffed into. So you can race gold can AQ's and the Neu and that's it? You pick up 17 motors off of Mikes chart between 56.5 and 60 mm. Most of them less expensive than the 1412.

Not trying to whoop up on ya more Doug. I'm just not sure yer spec does what you want it too.

[T.S.Davis]

Edit.....there are more motor below that size but none that measure up to the AQ and the Neu. So you'll have a two pony show is what I mean.

[Johnc]

Holy crap, here we go again (just like the "p-lim thread") about motors. It really sucks hearing all the argument's (everyone knows what's best and have the best knowledge. Everyone thinks they have the best resolution) but none are willing to give.

Can size/kv and weight and leave like that. Just like football, any descriptionies throw the yellow flag. What ever happened to honesty?

Isn't supposed to for fun? to meet other boaters (form a friendship) and to learn from them (as a newbe) and be competitive with them? To make clubs grow and to continue with the youth?

As I see it know clubs are going to go by the way side. With all the arguments going on with the adults youngsters are not going to get involved. As well as some adults, We don't know if we can race or not with what we have and may not afford motors that can compete. We just want to have fun.

Go ahead redo motors (make them better/whatever) have a class for them or for saw.

Just my opinion

[T.S.Davis]

Who's arguing? I asked a question.

The motors most were using for scales was discontinued. If someone showed at the pond looking to get into 10th scale we would have to send them away. Can't buy motors. That's not gonna work.

[don ferrette]

John C - who is arguing???? Take a deep breath and relax, progress will be made and a workable solution will be found. Will it be perfect? Highly unlikely but then again what class is "perfect". The mere fact we are talking simple dimensional limits puts us MILES ahead of where we have been. :cool:

[Doug Smock]

Curious though Doug. What are you expecting to see with another 3.5mm of motor? Not trying to start a brand new arguemnet. Honest. But 56.5 rules out:
all TP Motors
all Raider motors
all the Dynamite motors if you count the bearing cup which is machined as part of the can
all of the Leopard motors

The Neu 1412/2.5d is only 55mm depending on what can it was stuffed into. So you can race gold can AQ's and the Neu and that's it? You pick up 17 motors off of Mikes chart between 56.5 and 60 mm. Most of them less expensive than the 1412.

Not trying to whoop up on ya more Doug. I'm just not sure yer spec does what you want it too.

We're not expecting to see anything with the extra .5mm other than a fudge factor. We're not counting the bearing cup.
The dimension was brought up and voted on by the District FE racers at our annual meeting. It passed unanimously and everyone is happy so in that regard it's doing exactly what I /we want it to do. :thumbup1: And the list is gone..
I'm not selling it or cramming it down any ones throat. Just mentioned it to Don F. since he was on a similar page and we're neighbors.

[don ferrette]

And your input Doug, as well as others' positive input, is appreciated. :cool2:

[T.S.Davis]

No I meant if you went 60mm like has been tossed around. You're no going to pick up some crazy motor that upsets the apple cart. You guys picked 56.5 for a reason. Just tryi g to understand.

[Doug Smock]

No I meant if you went 60mm like has been tossed around. You're no going to pick up some crazy motor that upsets the apple cart. You guys picked 56.5 for a reason. Just tryi g to understand.

Got ya Terry, blew right passed that.
36.5 x 56.5 was proposed and accepted simply to do away with the motor list. The guys & gals want to continue to dance with the young lady that brought us. They feel like that is plenty of motor for these classes, I can't say I disagree with them.
60ish mm was proposed at the end of 17 for 18 and voted down.

[don ferrette]

In a blink of an eye 1/2 of the motors on the motor list are discontinued, the ProBoat and Dynomite motors are gone and rumor has it the UL-1 with the AQ2030 is on the chopping block for 2019. This is why I hate approved motor lists, now I'm thinking of doing a simple length & diameter limit. 36mm diameter for sure but if we go to 60mm can length it really opens up a lot of options yet still keeps the bigger more expensive motors like the NEU's out of the picture. All of the current "list" motors are in the 56mm length range so we are talking a mere 4mm more. Of the motors I've found that fit the 36x60 range the wattages and weight are very close and most are less than $100 (example 36x60mm OSE Raider #3660 $74.95). Need some feedback so I can finalize the rule set for the district meeting and so everyone who wants to give these baby scales a go in D12 can expand their choices for motors

[Moonie]

How many guys here race In D12?

[HTVboats]

In a blink of an eye 1/2 of the motors on the motor list are discontinued, the ProBoat and Dynomite motors are gone and rumor has it the UL-1 with the AQ2030 is on the chopping block for 2019. This is why I hate approved motor lists, now I'm thinking of doing a simple length & diameter limit. 36mm diameter for sure but if we go to 60mm can length it really opens up a lot of options yet still keeps the bigger more expensive motors like the NEU's out of the picture. All of the current "list" motors are in the 56mm length range so we are talking a mere 4mm more. Of the motors I've found that fit the 36x60 range the wattages and weight are very close and most are less than $100 (example 36x60mm OSE Raider #3660 $74.95). Need some feedback so I can finalize the rule set for the district meeting and so everyone who wants to give these baby scales a go in D12 can expand their choices for motors

Our host here OSE has very few motors under 57.5mm. As Don pointed out the "list" is shrinking. 60mm does seem to open up options with favorable costs and reflect the market. Most of the discussion we have had here in D-3 is in the 60-61mm range to encompass what is readily available. 57 to 62 seems to be the range everyone is toying with. If some miracle happened and a "compromise" between Namba, Impba, limited, spec and 1/10th rules were standardized, would that be a bad thing for FE? Your on the right track Don.
Mic

[T.S.Davis]

My thinking (stop laughing) on the 60mm mark is that it keeps out a doctor insano motor but allows us to find an alternative should Proboat and AQ stop making motors. Or if their supplier suddenly decides to buy an easier can to machine or something.

Perfect aint gonna happen but a bench mark has to happen somewhere. Sounds like Doug's guys just wanted to keep racing what they were racing. Not a criticism. I don't think they've dipped into 10th scale. We brought some down to Atlanta. Guys watched them go. They were probably in horror because we went the correct way. Like watching a car crash. MUST........TURN..........AWAY.........

[longballlumber]

Using watts to compare motors isn’t telling the whole story and I would argue it gives you a false positive of its capabilities. You really need to know the voltage and current being used to establish the watts value; or vise verse, if you want to estimate current limits. I only make this comment in caution because ALL of these motors are being pushed beyond their rated capacities.

16.0 volts X 95amp (average) = 1520 watts  for perspective the NEU 1515 is rated at 1250 continuous watts. However, the same questions need to be applied to the NEU ratings.

The only reason I question 60mm as a limit and not a shorter limit is the mythical beast we think fits in the 60mm range but not 58mm. Sure 60mm give us more options, but are they QUALITY options. There are SEVERAL posts about motors that simply don’t cut the mustard when compared to the 56mm motors that started all of this (turnigy, leopard come to mind). Also the longer you leave the limit the more room for innovation (we thought 62mm was OK).

I know many of you hold up burnt up motors/controllers as a badge of honor, I don’t subscribe to that mentality. If I am ever engaged by newer boater whether it be a cross over boater or a new boater, I am going tell him what BRAND and KV works for me or one that I know is a quality motor. I am not going to tell him 36X60 “go nuts” That way when he comes back and tells me the motor burnt up in 2min of runtime, I have already eliminated the motor as being the root cause. I am going to immediately look elsewhere.

ProMarine RTR’s SSS (w/3656) is under 57mm
The Aquacraft motors are under 57mm
The old proboat motors are under 57mm (don’t include the bearing protrusion)
The new proboat motors (UL-19 and Veles) are under 57mm
NEU 1412’s are under 57mm
TP Power 3630’s are under 58mm
HET Typhoon’s are under 58mm
Lepoards are over 60 – but don’t perform
OSE Raiders are right at the 60mm limit so depending on the allowance may or may not be legal. Secondly, (no offense to Steven or OSE) but they are not the first choice of racers. In fairness I have never ran one, but that has been communicated to me indirectly and based on my own observations.
Turnigy – don’t know the exact length, but it’s weak based on comments on OSE

It seems to be a forgone conclusion that we NEED to keep lengthening our limit; why not make the limit shorter? Easy, "perception" - long is better/faster.

[don ferrette]

Thanks for the input Mike. I got to the 36x60mm numbers by working off of the list of motors you sent me (BIG help thanks man!) and initially felt that 60mm offered the widest selection and keeps out the more powerful and far more expensive motors (like the Neu 1415 and 1512) as well as the potential "frankensteins" but I'm not locked in to it. 58.5mm is another I'm looking at, just want to give people the most viable and affordable options I can. Bottom line - I want boats on the water with decent reliability AND an attractive price point. :cool:

[don ferrette]

Our host here OSE has very few motors under 57.5mm. As Don pointed out the "list" is shrinking. 60mm does seem to open up options with favorable costs and reflect the market. Most of the discussion we have had here in D-3 is in the 60-61mm range to encompass what is readily available. 57 to 62 seems to be the range everyone is toying with. If some miracle happened and a "compromise" between Namba, Impba, limited, spec and 1/10th rules were standardized, would that be a bad thing for FE? Your on the right track Don.
MicI'm trying Mic, really. I have to be honest in that I'm kinda hoping this ultimately might spark something positive in at least getting closer to common ground. I've said it before and will continue to do so relentlessly- I think "approved motor lists" are absolutely no good for the very reason of stuff suddenly getting discontinued as well as other issues we've all seen. Straight up length and diameter limits are the way to go. Easy to understand, easy to "police" in the field and it takes care of itself for the most part. I've heard people say motor lists are fine as long as they are maintained and updated but when the question gets asked of who's gonna do the research, updating etc you get nothing but crickets. Sorry that dog don't hunt. Are length limits perfect? Of course not but nothing is, you will always have someone who will try to exploit (hybrids, frankensteins) the rules or even downright cheat. I've been looking really hard at this and I think somewhere between 58 and 60mm limit on length is where it needs to be. I feel anything over 60 opens the door wide for the frankensteins and custom one off stuff.

[T.S.Davis]

The options from 58 to 60 wouldn't make a lick of difference competition wise if they weren't included...........today at least. Looks like the Raiders, a couple TP, and one of the Promarine motors that has lower Kv. I don't think that one was intended for limited anyway. Who knows going forward. Wish we had a crystal ball. We just don't know if we'll need those couple mm to fill some future gap.

Clearly 62mm was too much and we thought that was going to work. I understand the apprehension Mike.

Maybe 58 and then if we find it's broke later we fix it. IDK. OH! Think of the fun we could have arguing over 2 mm! I know it's not worth it to me right now.

[Doug Smock]

I feel anything over 60 opens the door wide for the frankensteins and custom one off stuff.

A dimension rule opens the door. Optimized motors are being built. Everyone needs to accept that before they build a boat for the class(s).

[T.S.Davis]

Yes Doug but only so much power can be produced inside the dimensions. In theory of course. The 60mm (or 58 or 56.5 or whatever) was trying to keep much more powerful motors out of the mix.

[don ferrette]

A dimension rule opens the door. Optimized motors are being built. Everyone needs to accept that before they build a boat for the class(s).Perhaps but you're only gonna go so far within the physical limitations but in this case going over 60mm let's in big dollar stuff right out of the gate and I'm eyeing cost as well. In the part you chose not quote I said length limits are not perfect, nothing is as you will always have someone who will try to exploit and cheat. Lists are dated due to specific availability the moment they get created, dimensional rules are not. And again they are easy to tech in the field. And lastly things change and evolve, like Terry said you'd need a crystal ball to know what might come out in the future but at least with dimensions it either fits or it doesn't no list updating needed. :wink:

[Doug Smock]

Not perhaps...And the limitations will be found. The point was everyone needs to accept that going in. Sounds like you have. Good deal!

[don ferrette]

Not perhaps...And the limitations will be found. The point was everyone needs to accept that going in. Sounds like you have. Good deal!Just trying to find a good and simple path my brutha, you know I value your input no matter what. :biggrin:

[Doug Smock]

Just trying to find a good and simple path my brutha, you know I value your input no matter what. :biggrin:

I know my friend.
I was actually posting for the guys that are reading and may not know that there is a difference. It's out there, I'm done for now. :laugh: :wink:
Someone recently said "I got 99 problems, model boating ain't one of them." That's where I am.:thumbup1:

Have a good weekend fellas!

[don ferrette]

This is part of what Mike posted the other day-

ProMarine RTR’s SSS (w/3656) is under 57mm
The Aquacraft motors are under 57mm
The old proboat motors are under 57mm (don’t include the bearing protrusion)
The new proboat motors (UL-19 and Veles) are under 57mm
NEU 1412’s are under 57mm
TP Power 3630’s are under 58mm
HET Typhoon’s are under 58mm
Lepoards are over 60 – but don’t perform
OSE Raiders are right at the 60mm limit so depending on the allowance may or may not be legal. Secondly, (no offense to Steven or OSE) but they are not the first choice of racers. In fairness I have never ran one, but that has been communicated to me indirectly and based on my own observations.
Turnigy – don’t know the exact length, but it’s weak based on comments on OSE

I keep finding myself gravitating back to it and thinking really hard on it. With that being said I reached out to Doug to see if his D13 folks would consider a mere 2mm bump in length (from 56.5 to 58.5mm) With that we pick up the very affordable SSS, HET and TP motors for more options. And if we go with the 36.5 x 58.5mm (the .5mm is just a "fudge factor" for measuring) then we could have two neighboring districts with the same rules and no list. OMG!! What are we doing??? Fire and brimstone!! Cats and dogs sleeping together!! :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:

Seriously though this could be a start. Maybe... just maybe we can see a migration toward some common ground. :cool2:

[Doug Smock]

Ds 12 & 13 have been on the same page since 2010 and the P Shootout. Chili & I worked together to keep us going a similar direction.

The district membership makes any rule/class changes at our annual meeting. The racers rule the roost, what the majority wants they get. I don't even vote as to make it clear that I don't interfere with that. I simply make sure they have a place & time to be heard.

The District is set for the 2019 season. Any changes will be made in Nov. 2019.
I'll be watching to see what you guys are doing, and how it works out. Thanks for keeping us in mind.

[don ferrette]

Ds 12 & 13 have been on the same page since 2010 and the P Shootout. Chili & I worked together to keep us going a similar direction.

The district membership makes any rule/class changes at our annual meeting. The racers rule the roost, what the majority wants they get. I don't even vote as to make it clear that I don't interfere with that. I simply make sure they have a place & time to be heard.

The District is set for the 2019 season. Any changes will be made in Nov. 2019.
I'll be watching to see what you guys are doing, and how it works out. Thanks for keeping us in mind.Wish I would have found out sooner about the motors being discontinued and got this moving before your meeting, looks like I was a couple weeks too late. All good my friend as we can still plant the seeds of progress and see where we are during the 2019 season. :cool:

[Doug Smock]

Yes sir..:thumbup1::beerchug:

[Greg Schweers]

There was a reason why the pro boat 1500 work so well because of the KV. Big boats like big props.I’m not sure the pro boat 2000 would work in 34+” boat. This is something that needs to be tested. My 8255 runs a 2” prop.

[Greg Schweers]

Plus I think you’re gonna need a six poll motor. Technically you’re have a year to figure it out

[don ferrette]

While I could spend time and a good number of keystrokes disproving the "big boats like big props" analogy let's just agree to disagree. :smile:

But to stay on point I forgot that NAMBA D19 is voting on this today-
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?60507-NAMBA-P-LIMITED-Motor-List-Pro-Boat-Motors-NO-LONGER-AVAILABLE&p=728947#post728947
If they pass this it sounds like it will head right up the line for consideration nationally so I'm gonna watch for the results of the D19 vote. :cool2:

[Peter A]

I have been watching these discussions on 'spec' motors for some time. While we do not have classes as such here in NZ, I have a peaking interest in 1/10 scale and one or two others have shown a mild interest. Any which way it seems to be a hard road to get a full class of anything, or even a class of anything that doesn't burn fossils round here.

Anyways, just to throw a thought out there. What if instead of limiting the motor, there was a limit on the fuel? From what I understand you guys run a 10000 mah limit for bats. If you reduced that to 5000mah then it would not matter what motor was used, there would be a limited amount of watt/hours to be used - a restricted amount of fuel. It would change the way you set up boats as you would have to get the best use of what is in the tank for speed and runtime. Ultimately it has an immediate effect of levelling the playing field and keeping the budgets reasonable.

Just a thort!

[Ken Haines]

This is part of what Mike posted the other day-
ProMarine RTR’s SSS (w/3656) is under 57mm
The Aquacraft motors are under 57mm
The old proboat motors are under 57mm (don’t include the bearing protrusion)
The new proboat motors (UL-19 and Veles) are under 57mm
NEU 1412’s are under 57mm
TP Power 3630’s are under 58mm
HET Typhoon’s are under 58mm
Lepoards are over 60 – but don’t perform
OSE Raiders are right at the 60mm limit so depending on the allowance may or may not be legal. Secondly, (no offense to Steven or OSE) but they are not the first choice of racers. In fairness I have never ran one, but that has been communicated to me indirectly and based on my own observations.
Turnigy – don’t know the exact length, but it’s weak based on comments on OSE

Hi Don, I like these ongoing constructive discussions.
Just for additional information, I have only really used that Turnigy motor
at 1 race...the 2017 Michigan Cup, I won LSH with it. I would agreed that
they will smoke if over propped, but it was pretty fast. I switched to the
Pro-Boat 2000 this year, similar speed, just a bit more durable. Some of
us had been hoping that due to the approximate $45 price that it would
survive the length changes. Actually that motor was the only issue to me
that made some of us question the 37 x 60mm rule change as it measures
approximately 60.24mm.
Just information, I will keep reading as what I
think is good positive debate continues.
Thx, Ken

[properchopper]

While I could spend time and a good number of keystrokes disproving the "big boats like big props" analogy let's just agree to disagree. :smile:

But to stay on point I forgot that NAMBA D19 is voting on this today-
https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?60507-NAMBA-P-LIMITED-Motor-List-Pro-Boat-Motors-NO-LONGER-AVAILABLE&p=728947#post728947
If they pass this it sounds like it will head right up the line for consideration nationally so I'm gonna watch for the results of the D19 vote. :cool2:



It passed. I'm ready to research some " motor upgrades" in the spirit of No More AS MANUFACTURED stipulation. First must dress properly before motor mod testing...

162947

[T.S.Davis]

What does everyone think of some kind of "must be in a can" verbiage?

I think Greg was spying on our meeting over the weekend. I said the same thing about scales and bigger blades. Probably not fair to say "all" scales like the larger blades but most of the boats on our pond seem to. Dan's Pay n' Pak can run any blade but it's a rigger. Legal but still a rigger. Don't think SAW Don. These tend to be lumbering hogs in the turns. The fat blade seems to get them back out of the turn a little better. Again, not all of them. 6 poles are yer friend.

We talked about a number of things at our meeting Saturday. Totally informally though. We were primarily there to enjoy each others company. Did that gobs. Is 9 hours too long to stay at a bar?........anywho. We talked a bit about the lengths. Didn't vote on anything. It's just not that important in truth. We'll probably ask the club to approve 60mm instead of 62 for 2019. If at some point IMPBA has a trial set that's different we'll comply with that if it's different. Any major events we should happen to host would need to include any such limitation on the flier. Much like we did for the 2018 nats. We submitted a bid to IMPBA to host that include our desired format and any deviations from the book.

Some of us dig traveling to share the joy. If yer gonna go to Rome.........better find out what the Romans er' doing before you go. If we're heading out to race, it's incumbent on us to make sure our boats comply with our hosts rule set. Atlanta having a shorter limit than us would impact the half dozen of us willing to travel. That's okay for now I think. Every area has the freedom to define it's rules even if there is an official IMPBA rule set. Pretty sure NAMBA works the same way. How else would they have trialed the set they are planning to propose. To do that, they have to ignore the rule book and race what they plan to propose. This sounds familiar.............hmmm. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer a standard but I still need to check if I'm planning to play with others.

[rayzerdesigns]

It did pass with the amnendment that any bearing protrusion be included in dimension..now off to the BOD for approval

[Coug90]

I agree that we would always be chasing our tails with motor lists simply because we don't control enough clout in the industry to make a difference in manufacturing. I like this discussion about letting motor size limitations dictate our selections. It's simple and liberating. It would then be up to us to find out how reliable different motors are and to let the cream rise to the top, so to speak. Reliability may depend as much on quality of choices as it does on equipment used. I like that we have to work to find the right prop/motor/boat combo and do the little things that make them go faster in competition, but embrace compromise to keep them from melting down. It's just like the real boats, right? Run too close to the screws and you eventually pay the price. I like where this looks to be going and am interested to see feedback on how 2019 goes for those districts trying out this new rule set in 1:10 scale. Question: Has anyone asked whether outrunner motors are considered in the rule? They would certainly open up your motor selection exponentially. Our club has run them exclusively in one class and along side inrunner motors in our other two classes of 1:10 scale with good, competitive results. Number crunchers would need to decide whether the same dimensions would apply to all motors or if outrunners would have to have their own range of size limits for some reason. I like the idea of addressing both types of motors while we're looking at what could lead to a significant change in how we look at motor selection for this and other classes of racing for area clubs, NAMBA or IMPBA. This is the most open-minded discussion I've seen, toward finding a long term solution to this ongoing problem. It's safe to say that most of us are fed up with trying to establish and maintain viable motor lists. Nothing's going to be perfect, but we might at least be able to come up with something frustrating for old and new racers to figure out so we're not left out in the cold at the whim of a few manufacturers every year or two. I'd certainly support dimension limitations even if it came with other specs if needed (watts or whatever). FREEDOM!! (Sorry, I had a little Braveheart moment there.) Let's keep the discussion going, thanks.

[ray schrauwen]

Using watts to compare motors isn’t telling the whole story and I would argue it gives you a false positive of its capabilities. You really need to know the voltage and current being used to establish the watts value; or vise verse, if you want to estimate current limits. I only make this comment in caution because ALL of these motors are being pushed beyond their rated capacities.

16.0 volts X 95amp (average) = 1520 watts  for perspective the NEU 1515 is rated at 1250 continuous watts. However, the same questions need to be applied to the NEU ratings.

The only reason I question 60mm as a limit and not a shorter limit is the mythical beast we think fits in the 60mm range but not 58mm. Sure 60mm give us more options, but are they QUALITY options. There are SEVERAL posts about motors that simply don’t cut the mustard when compared to the 56mm motors that started all of this (turnigy, leopard come to mind). Also the longer you leave the limit the more room for innovation (we thought 62mm was OK).

I know many of you hold up burnt up motors/controllers as a badge of honor, I don’t subscribe to that mentality. If I am ever engaged by newer boater whether it be a cross over boater or a new boater, I am going tell him what BRAND and KV works for me or one that I know is a quality motor. I am not going to tell him 36X60 “go nuts” That way when he comes back and tells me the motor burnt up in 2min of runtime, I have already eliminated the motor as being the root cause. I am going to immediately look elsewhere.

ProMarine RTR’s SSS (w/3656) is under 57mm
The Aquacraft motors are under 57mm
The old proboat motors are under 57mm (don’t include the bearing protrusion)
The new proboat motors (UL-19 and Veles) are under 57mm
NEU 1412’s are under 57mm
TP Power 3630’s are under 58mm
HET Typhoon’s are under 58mm
Lepoards are over 60 – but don’t perform
OSE Raiders are right at the 60mm limit so depending on the allowance may or may not be legal. Secondly, (no offense to Steven or OSE) but they are not the first choice of racers. In fairness I have never ran one, but that has been communicated to me indirectly and based on my own observations.
Turnigy – don’t know the exact length, but it’s weak based on comments on OSE

It seems to be a forgone conclusion that we NEED to keep lengthening our limit; why not make the limit shorter? Easy, "perception" - long is better/faster.


SSS $65, nice 6 pole unit.

[Coug90]

I think it makes sense to make sure a new size limit is not smaller than the current motors included in the current rule. Sure, the fact that most are out of production is a problem but it keeps you from eliminating the motor sizes that have been the basis of the class and are still being run in boats out there. The supply of those motors will eventually dry up, but they do work for now and you don't have to reinvent the wheel to make a new rule. Why not be inclusive of what's already there? Maybe just take the biggest dimensions of what we have now and not go any larger? Good or bad, the motors do work if we run them in a way that keeps them alive. If anything, it not only keeps it affordable, but limits what we do when we run them. It doesn't have to be a great motor to perform well enough to allow for good racing. If we all have to be conservative, in some ways it may level the playing field over time and make the racing even better. Guys will have to learn the capabilities of their equipment for the boat they have, build or buy better boats and prop wisely for efficiency. It'll all work out in the end. Folks will discover ways to make to get the most out of what they have. Different motor reputations will come and go like they always have and guys will have their favorites like they always have. At the very least, it sounds like a good place to start and see what happens. Simple, inexpensive, challenging and competitive. Some of the most popular classes start with that. It class doesn't need to be faster. It needs to be better and more accessible for everyone. I think that's why LSH was so popular and IMO, the 1:10 scale boats are much cooler to see on the water than those. I think the motor rules in "spec" classes have been the most frustrating to deal with on the national level, so much so that many clubs choose to make their own rules and not have sanctioned events because they have found a way to make it work well locally. There isn't much benefit, other than insurance, to putting up with this sort of frustration if you don't have to. Ideally it would be nice to look at the motor rules that all organized 1:10 racers use and see what they have in common, instead of how they differ. I don't imagine that anyone is doing anything completely unreasonable or very different when it comes to performance in this class. Maybe that would help decide parameters to look at. Perhaps start a new thread where all clubs can let us know what motors they are currently allowing in 1:10 scale along with what they've seen comparably in their club's competition. See what we have out there for sizes and specs and observations. Someone who knows about numbers could compile the info about each motor and start a comparison and see what they have in common that we might be able to consider when trying to set reasonable specs for a motor in this class. I know from this thread that there are people with knowledge to compare specs and look for common ground, no matter what type of motors you compare. It's just an idea, but I think it has merit. Any takers? We could start with a list of clubs that race 1:10 and seeing if we can reach folks from each of them. As far as I know, in WA we have Classic Thunder, ERCU, PSFE and RCU that race 1:10 scale electrics. It would be easy enough to get a hold of folks in those clubs for information and a list of motors the members are allowed to run.

[T.S.Davis]

That's all been done Mitch.

Darin did some testing on various motors to compare them to each other. Great stuff. Then Mike Ball collected a database of motors and their dimensions. More great stuff. We "should" have enough data to make an educated best guess but as is always the case..............no consensus. It's a weird FE thing. Many FE guys want to be right more than they want to compromise. They'll fabricate some crazy scenario to discredit ideas rather than find a workable solve. "What if? What about? This could happen. That could happen. I can......errrr..... somebody can...... get around the rule this way/that way". It's truly maddening.

The old limited rules and even the tighter tenth scale rules for motors wasn't great. It was a flawed un-techable compromise from inception. BUT!.......it got us on the water. The rules held up and put more boats on the water than any other power range for 9 or so years. If someone hadn't finally just run with the idea at some point we never would have had the classes in any of the books. If Newland had waited around for the nay sayers and malcontents to agree we would still be running brushed 700 motors.

We're right there again. Both organizations. 57,58,59,60mm? Don't know. I do have an opinion. Seems we all do. Length is the only real question at this point. It's time to trust someone's gut. At some point we're going to have to roll the dice and hope that our educated guess is enough for maybe another 9 or 10 years.

[don ferrette]

That's all been done Mitch.

Darin did some testing on various motors to compare them to each other. Great stuff. Then Mike Ball collected a database of motors and their dimensions. More great stuff. We "should" have enough data to make an educated best guess but as is always the case..............no consensus. It's a weird FE thing. Many FE guys want to be right more than they want to compromise. They'll fabricate some crazy scenario to discredit ideas rather than find a workable solve. "What if? What about? This could happen. That could happen. I can......errrr..... somebody can...... get around the rule this way/that way". It's truly maddening.

The old limited rules and even the tighter tenth scale rules for motors wasn't great. It was a flawed un-techable compromise from inception. BUT!.......it got us on the water. The rules held up and put more boats on the water than any other power range for 9 or so years. If someone hadn't finally just run with the idea at some point we never would have had the classes in any of the books. If Newland had waited around for the nay sayers and malcontents to agree we would still be running brushed 700 motors.

We're right there again. Both organizations. 57,58,59,60mm? Don't know. I do have an opinion. Seems we all do. Length is the only real question at this point. It's time to trust someone's gut. At some point we're going to have to roll the dice and hope that our educated guess is enough for maybe another 9 or 10 years.

Great post my friend and as I mentioned in a previous post I'm trying, really am!! And you're right there seems to be a few looking for that perfect answer, that silver bullet......... well there's isn't one. Like you said we need to do a gut check and roll the dice!! With that being said I plan to complete the 1/10th scale rules for district 12's 2019 season this weekend and get them to the DD for our upcoming meeting. As part of that I am also going to mirror our district P limited motor specs to be the same, this was actually suggested/requested by a couple district members. So with that being said the motor limits I am looking at are as follows-

maximum motor can length including any bearing protrusions 60mm, maximum motor can diameter 37mm.

Two things came into play that made me go to the 60mm mark, the NAMBA D19 vote that is now going to go up the chain to their BOD and this quote from Terry way back on post #9-


"The Neu 1412/2.5d is only 55mm depending on what can it was stuffed into. So you can race gold can AQ's and the Neu and that's it? You pick up 17 motors off of Mikes chart between 56.5 and 60 mm. Most of them less expensive than the 1412."

This is the 48th post on the 1/10th scale motor options, time to pull the pin and roll.................. :cool:

[T.S.Davis]

Don, more like 4800th post on motor options. This is just the first thread regarding 10th motors.

Turn left Don. For the love of all things holy.........do it like everyone else is already doing it. Don't be afraid of the unknown or the unfamiliar. That's how we got 4800 posts on spec motors.

[Darin Jordan]

Going to just say this one thing... All of the previously "approved" motors were 6-Pole motors.

Very few, if ANY, of the "possibility" motors out there in the 36mm diameters are 6-Pole. Most are 4 or 2. A 56.5mm 6-Pole is CONSIDERABLY more capable than a similar length 4-Pole, or 2-Pole.

Testing the motors head-to-head on the bench proves this point.

That said, whatever dimensional limits you agree on are better than ANY "motor-list" based rule. Everything will sort itself out from there. The "P-LTD" classes could use a "slow-down" anyhow.

[rayzerdesigns]

Great post my friend and as I mentioned in a previous post I'm trying, really am!! And you're right there seems to be a few looking for that perfect answer, that silver bullet......... well there's isn't one. Like you said we need to do a gut check and roll the dice!! With that being said I plan to complete the 1/10th scale rules for district 12's 2019 season this weekend and get them to the DD for our upcoming meeting. As part of that I am also going to mirror our district P limited motor specs to be the same, this was actually suggested/requested by a couple district members. So with that being said the motor limits I am looking at are as follows-

maximum motor can length excluding any bearing protrusion 60mm maximum motor can diameter 37mm.

Two things came into play that made me go to the 60mm mark, the NAMBA D19 vote that is now going to go up the chain to their BOD and this quote from Terry way back on post #9-


"The Neu 1412/2.5d is only 55mm depending on what can it was stuffed into. So you can race gold can AQ's and the Neu and that's it? You pick up 17 motors off of Mikes chart between 56.5 and 60 mm. Most of them less expensive than the 1412."

This is the 48th post on the motor options, time to pull the pin and roll.................. :cool:

The length includes any bearing extrusion.. not excludes it

[Coug90]

I agree with what Darin and T.S. are saying. I've read all of the tests and the many threads on this issue over the years. Folks make their own club rules because it's too difficult to get racers to agree on anything. Racers have too many issues around competition and egos to be expected deal with this sort of thing. Folks who just want to go racing and "get the boats on the water" don't have that kind of patience. I know I don't. It's so much easier to make adjustments when you have a smaller group in charge of the decisions. It's insane to think that there is any completely right or wrong decision here, but it seems that the inmates are running the asylum. For the sake of the classes out there, wouldn't we be better served to leave the final decisions up to a governing committee instead? The general membership has identified a problem and at least a general idea on how to address it. Folks were voted in to various NAMBA positions. Can we not leave it up to a group of officials to make an educated decision for a class for the sake of the class itself? Roll the dice and put boats on the water. It sounds like the conservative approach might be a good place to start and stay close to what the class has already. We can live with what is decided or we can ask for adjustments in the future. It will work itself out on the water. I suppose now we'd have to come up with a proposal to change how decisions are made on the national level. Like Darin said, whatever motor decision is made, it's better than any list based rule. They're just too hard to maintain and adjust to on a national level. I have loved racing with the club I'm in for 25 years now. We've only ever raced 1:10 scale. We have three classes with different motor rules for each. The club is still growing in numbers and is still has fantastic racing IMO. We've had ups and downs with rule changes, but the process is what keeps things going. We submit proposals each off season. They get reviewed by a committee of officials who we voted on and trust to put the club's best interest in mind (supported by a set of club bylaws) when making decisions on what makes it to a ballot and what does not. We gave them that authority because once the club got to be larger, the old method of having everyone vote on everything proposed just wasn't working well for the club. I don't know if a nationally sanctioned class can really reach its full potential as far as national events and multi district participation take place without changing the way decisions are made. I know that it would be difficult to sell the idea of having our club participate solely under NAMBA rules for our classes at this point, but I think it would certainly be a step in the right direction for many of the clubs that have started running 1:10 scale since it became a sanctioned class in NAMBA and those who will start running it under a set of rules in IMPBA. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a way to "roll the dice" on a motor rule in a way that it can happen quickly without intervention from NAMBA. I really do think it would all work itself out once this first steps are taken and a proposal on specs can be made. Maybe start with 56.5 and see what happens over the next year or two. Would this spec work for outrunner motors too or would they need a spec of their own. May as well make a spec for them at the same time, but I don't have the technical know-how to do that. Darin, you're going to have to help me out on that stuff. Right now, our club is running the Himax motor, that is legal in NAMBA, in a class with the Scorpion HK3226-1600 motor with very competitive results. There are other inexpensive outrunner offerings out there that fall into the same general size too. Outrunner motor size specs seem to fall on the smaller side when compared to comparably performing 6-pole inrunners. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with comparable outrunner specs to go with whatever inrunner specs are proposed. Why not include them and expand the brushless motor options? I guess a proposal needs to come from one of the regions first, right? I was part of the original group who came up with the proposal for the 1:10 scale class specs. Much of it was a compromise, but it was necessary. I think it will be necessary again if we want to continue it's popularity with a national sanction. If not, I'm sure it will continue to flourish under individual club rules. Is there anyone writing up a proposal for their district meeting right now or are we still just in the talking stage? Agreement or not, it's pretty clear that something needs to get proposed if we want to rid ourselves of the motor-list based rule any time soon. We already know what the future looks like with that in place. I'm willing to generate some action from our NAMBA district if you like. Sorry about getting off track on political structures for a while. Must be low blood sugar or something. Happy Holidays everyone. Gonna go work on my 1978 Miss Van's P.X. project. Needs work.

[don ferrette]

The length includes any bearing extrusion.. not excludes it

Ooops, thanks. :doh:

[rayzerdesigns]

I agree with what Darin and T.S. are saying. I've read all of the tests and the many threads on this issue over the years. Folks make their own club rules because it's too difficult to get racers to agree on anything. Racers have too many issues around competition and egos to be expected deal with this sort of thing. Folks who just want to go racing and "get the boats on the water" don't have that kind of patience. I know I don't. It's so much easier to make adjustments when you have a smaller group in charge of the decisions. It's insane to think that there is any completely right or wrong decision here, but it seems that the inmates are running the asylum. For the sake of the classes out there, wouldn't we be better served to leave the final decisions up to a governing committee instead? The general membership has identified a problem and at least a general idea on how to address it. Folks were voted in to various NAMBA positions. Can we not leave it up to a group of officials to make an educated decision for a class for the sake of the class itself? Roll the dice and put boats on the water. It sounds like the conservative approach might be a good place to start and stay close to what the class has already. We can live with what is decided or we can ask for adjustments in the future. It will work itself out on the water. I suppose now we'd have to come up with a proposal to change how decisions are made on the national level. Like Darin said, whatever motor decision is made, it's better than any list based rule. They're just too hard to maintain and adjust to on a national level. I have loved racing with the club I'm in for 25 years now. We've only ever raced 1:10 scale. We have three classes with different motor rules for each. The club is still growing in numbers and is still has fantastic racing IMO. We've had ups and downs with rule changes, but the process is what keeps things going. We submit proposals each off season. They get reviewed by a committee of officials who we voted on and trust to put the club's best interest in mind (supported by a set of club bylaws) when making decisions on what makes it to a ballot and what does not. We gave them that authority because once the club got to be larger, the old method of having everyone vote on everything proposed just wasn't working well for the club. I don't know if a nationally sanctioned class can really reach its full potential as far as national events and multi district participation take place without changing the way decisions are made. I know that it would be difficult to sell the idea of having our club participate solely under NAMBA rules for our classes at this point, but I think it would certainly be a step in the right direction for many of the clubs that have started running 1:10 scale since it became a sanctioned class in NAMBA and those who will start running it under a set of rules in IMPBA. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a way to "roll the dice" on a motor rule in a way that it can happen quickly without intervention from NAMBA. I really do think it would all work itself out once this first steps are taken and a proposal on specs can be made. Maybe start with 56.5 and see what happens over the next year or two. Would this spec work for outrunner motors too or would they need a spec of their own. May as well make a spec for them at the same time, but I don't have the technical know-how to do that. Darin, you're going to have to help me out on that stuff. Right now, our club is running the Himax motor, that is legal in NAMBA, in a class with the Scorpion HK3226-1600 motor with very competitive results. There are other inexpensive outrunner offerings out there that fall into the same general size too. Outrunner motor size specs seem to fall on the smaller side when compared to comparably performing 6-pole inrunners. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with comparable outrunner specs to go with whatever inrunner specs are proposed. Why not include them and expand the brushless motor options? I guess a proposal needs to come from one of the regions first, right? I was part of the original group who came up with the proposal for the 1:10 scale class specs. Much of it was a compromise, but it was necessary. I think it will be necessary again if we want to continue it's popularity with a national sanction. If not, I'm sure it will continue to flourish under individual club rules. Is there anyone writing up a proposal for their district meeting right now or are we still just in the talking stage? Agreement or not, it's pretty clear that something needs to get proposed if we want to rid ourselves of the motor-list based rule any time soon. We already know what the future looks like with that in place. I'm willing to generate some action from our NAMBA district if you like. Sorry about getting off track on political structures for a while. Must be low blood sugar or something. Happy Holidays everyone. Gonna go work on my 1978 Miss Van's P.X. project. Needs work.

Mitch the proposal has been sent to namba.. it has to go to secretary and BOD to see if it needs to be re worded.. if not it will be put out to a vote through the whole NAMBA Membership..So it is in the works.. it was voted on in d29 to go straight to national..the proposal was for 37x60 max.. to include any bearing protrusion

[T.S.Davis]

Ray, has anybody addressed 10th scale? They had their own motor list I thought.

[rayzerdesigns]

Ray, has anybody addressed 10th scale? They had their own motor list I thought.
No sur.. not that I know of..

[T.S.Davis]

So NAMBA 10th guys are at least a year away and that's only IF someone gets proactive now. You may need to kick the cage on their behalf Ray.

[don ferrette]

Going to just say this one thing... All of the previously "approved" motors were 6-Pole motors.

Very few, if ANY, of the "possibility" motors out there in the 36mm diameters are 6-Pole. Most are 4 or 2. A 56.5mm 6-Pole is CONSIDERABLY more capable than a similar length 4-Pole, or 2-Pole.

Testing the motors head-to-head on the bench proves this point.

That said, whatever dimensional limits you agree on are better than ANY "motor-list" based rule. Everything will sort itself out from there. The "P-LTD" classes could use a "slow-down" anyhow.

Not disagreeing with anything here but we are facing the current situation of most of those 6 pole motors are now history, do we let the classes die with them?? Of course not!! I said it before and I'll say it again- time to gut check this, set some simple diameter/length limits and roll the dice. Darin is SPOT ON THE MARK saying everything will sort itself out from there, it will and always has. I've been in this game a while now and watched that happen in gas and nitro, this will be no different. There is no magic answer, no golden ring, no silver bullet. There is only one thing guaranteed not to change and that's things will keep changing! Like it or not we in the boating community are but a small slice of the r/c community pie and often simply have to adapt to what's out there. Time to pull the pin and rock!! Bottom line it's all about getting boats on the water boys and girls..............

[Doug Smock]

The "P-LTD" classes could use a "slow-down" anyhow.

You didn't just say this did you? Glad you did. :wink:

[785boats]

Here in Australia, at our club, all our restricted classes run the 3656 Proboat, Dynamite, or Aquacraft 1500kv motors. The Aquacraft is no longer available.
But we are also restricted to the 45A Proboat or Aquacraft ESC.
Props are not restricted, but usually end up being the X645 or X447 size, in monos, sports hydros, & riggers.
Maybe a restricted ESC amperage could work as a suitable "slow-down" factor.
Could keep the costs down a bit too.

[Doug Smock]

Paul you guys can't possibly use a ESC restriction successfully. And with 3656 motors? That will never work, right fellas??:laugh:
This guy in Ga. preached that for years and was beat up pretty good for it. The "motor is the fuse" mentality took over and is exactly what eventually brought us to the motor party. Go ahead guys, say it isn't so...:laugh:

Paul, you owe me an apology for dragging me back into this discussion..:tongue::hug1:

[don ferrette]

Paul you guys can't possibly use a ESC restriction successfully. And with 3656 motors? That will never work, right fellas??:laugh:
This guy in Ga. preached that for years and was beat up pretty good for it. The "motor is the fuse" mentality took over and is exactly what eventually brought us to the motor party. Go ahead guys, say it isn't so...:laugh:

Paul, you owe me an apology for dragging me back into this discussion..:tongue::hug1:

Ahhhh Doug ya know it's not the same without you. :beerchug:

Something else I forgot to mention earlier............

A non boater friend of mine asked me the other day what was new and how the boating stuff was going. Told him a little about this current "discussion" about limits and lengths and how we are so close yet so far at the same time. Said biggest thing was the talk of lengths, how some said 56mm and some of us want to go to 60mm to significantly up the choices. He stopped me and said from "what to what?" I said 56 to 60mm. He replied "So a 4mm difference. You guys are hung up on a touch over 1/8th of an inch?"

Ummmm....

1/8th of an inch. :blink:

[785boats]

:laugh: Sorry for dragging ,you back in mate.

As an industrial electrician, I would maintain that the motor/prop is the load & the ESC is akin to a fuse. As I'm sure most people would. And as I'm sure you did.:biggrin:

But yes the restricted ESC works well for us. We can get two races out of one single 5000mah 4s pack with the setup described in my previous post.

Below is a typical Restricted Sports Hydro race for a bit of a comparison.
Most of the boats are Whip 30's or the GP 310. Even the Insane 30 has raced in this class. The yellow boat is an H&M Lifter I think
Sure. The speeds are a bit slower than you guys. But that's the idea. The racing can be extremely close, & bags of fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo_dILHJeu0

[longballlumber]

Ahhhh Doug ya know it's not the same without you. :beerchug:

Something else I forgot to mention earlier............

A non boater friend of mine asked me the other day what was new and how the boating stuff was going. Told him a little about this current "discussion" about limits and lengths and how we are so close yet so far at the same time. Said biggest thing was the talk of lengths, how some said 56mm and some of us want to go to 60mm to significantly up the choices. He stopped me and said from "what to what?" I said 56 to 60mm. He replied "So a 4mm difference. You guys are hung up on a touch over 1/8th of an inch?"

Ummmm....

1/8th of an inch. :blink:

Did you tell your friend that 62mm is too long? So in reality it’s a 1/16” that makes the difference between the right direction vs the wrong direction.

[don ferrette]

Did you tell your friend that 62mm is too long? So in reality it’s a 1/16” that makes the difference between the right direction vs the wrong direction.LOL!! Nah at that point I'm standing thinking in my head are we really duking it out over 1/8th of an inch? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[T.S.Davis]

So.......how do you verify that a 45 amp speedo is truly a 45 amp speedo? Sticker? Good plan. Oh! I know! How about manufacturers rating?!?! Cuz that worked so well with the AQ motors. Two motors with the same stampings with different windings. But sure why not? We can trust manufacturers of the lowest end esc to build them all exactly the same. If yer not hearing the note of sarcasm it's cuz its tough to convey in text form. You guys are too smart for this.

Gas motors and nitro motors are both dimensionaly limited. There's only so much I can do to a .67 nitro motor before it fails. Am I insane here or do they have unlimited power? Why does a limit on a electric motor size freak people out? Please. Somebody explain the apprehension to me because I do NOT understand it.

[Doug Smock]

:laugh: Just having fun with it now Terry. Paul knows that won't work. Don't tell the guys they are failing Paul. Oh wait, never mind!:tongue:

I'm not suggesting you go there Terry. That ship has sailed..:Sinking:

Not freaked out BTW. It still is what it is.

[photohoward1]

Hey I have an idea. Limit the Battery. Say 3000mah limit per 1 heat. Not hard to tech battery. If there is a question of how many mah
someone used just take the pack and charge it. if it goes past 3000mah. You are disqualified. Efficiency is the key. Big motor big amps. This scenario would limit the amps used in a race. A guy could run a Neu 1521 or a Lehner if they wanted. They are limited to 3000mah per race. That's about 120 average amps per race. If that's to High then drop it to 2500. That's 100 amps average. If you want an easy way to control power limit the fuel. Heck make it 2000mah. 80 amps average. Don't give me crap that guys need the weight. Just add it then. Not in batteries though. And don't give me crap about "c" ratings. A 2000mah pack with a 70c rating should be good for 140 amps.

[don ferrette]

Hey I have an idea. Limit the Battery. Say 3000mah limit per 1 heat. Not hard to tech battery. If there is a question of how many mah
someone used just take the pack and charge it. if it goes past 3000mah. You are disqualified. Efficiency is the key. Big motor big amps. This scenario would limit the amps used in a race. A guy could run a Neu 1521 or a Lehner if they wanted. They are limited to 3000mah per race. That's about 120 average amps per race. If that's to High then drop it to 2500. That's 100 amps average. If you want an easy way to control power limit the fuel. Heck make it 2000mah. 80 amps average. Don't give me crap that guys need the weight. Just add it then. Not in batteries though. And don't give me crap about "c" ratings. A 2000mah pack with a 70c rating should be good for 140 amps.

Oh hell no. That opens a bigger can of worms than the idea of ESC ratings. What if you jump the start and have to do and extra lap. Or the water's real rough. Or you pick a leaf or something that you can still keep running but creates extra drag. Who's mah checker or charger are ya gonna use? Is it accurate? Geez people WHY is this being made to be so frikkin' complicated?? Like Terry says why does a simple limit on a electric motor size freak people out? What if, what if, what if all these what if scenarios. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! KISS principle fellas keep it simple and EASY to understand. You measure the motor diameter and length, it's either legal or it's not. END OF STORY!! No lists, no meters, no gray area. You over complicate stuff like this and then wonder why no newbies wanna try it. SMH.......

[Peter A]

Hey I have an idea. Limit the Battery. Say 3000mah limit per 1 heat. Not hard to tech battery. If there is a question of how many mah
someone used just take the pack and charge it. if it goes past 3000mah. You are disqualified. Efficiency is the key. Big motor big amps. This scenario would limit the amps used in a race. A guy could run a Neu 1521 or a Lehner if they wanted. They are limited to 3000mah per race. That's about 120 average amps per race. If that's to High then drop it to 2500. That's 100 amps average. If you want an easy way to control power limit the fuel. Heck make it 2000mah. 80 amps average. Don't give me crap that guys need the weight. Just add it then. Not in batteries though. And don't give me crap about "c" ratings. A 2000mah pack with a 70c rating should be good for 140 amps.

Threw you guys a similar idea in post #39. Howard is right in this respect, limit the available fuel, limit the max potential speed vs runtime. It also means no limits on the motor, run what ever you want, you still have to balance the package to finish a race! If you run 5000mah packs there is only so much power (fuel) available for use. Sure there are always those who will use 95% of available charge, but in that lies the real problem, those who will always want to push the absolute limits, even to the point of cheating to win. Win what? A model boat race of course! Gets you back to standing there wondering why so much debate over 1/8". :confused1:

[785boats]

I guess I'm just glad that all the guys here are honest. We don't need to worry about people using other than what the rules say.
A plastic $20.00 trophy is all we are playing for. If someone want's to cheat to win that, then "I pity the fool"

[Doug Smock]

Ya know Don is right. Make it simple. Make it a P class...:wink:

[don ferrette]

Ya know Don is right. Make it simple. Make it a P class...:wink:

Funny and not funny at the same time..............

[don ferrette]

Why are we doomed to keep doing the same stupid stuff over and over..........

This is just like when we (IMPBA) moved to eliminate the LS and XLS engine divisions in the gas classes. Just like now there were a few very vocal doomsdayers who kept coming up with all these what ifs and nightmare possible scenarios. My favorite was how someone was gonna show up with some super duper custom mega dollar billet monster motor and all the Zenoah racers were gonna get their butts handed to them. Well cooler and smarter heads prevailed and it got passed. Guess what? Turned out to be one of the best things to happen for the gas classes. And those doomsday scenarios?? Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. The same guys winning before kept on winning. The best prepared best driven boats still prevailed and the good 'ol affordable Zenoah is still to this day the most winning gas motor ever.

Smart thing here is to set a dimensional limit, pull the pin on a one year trial and see how it plays out. KISS principle.....

I know what I'm going to do in penning the motor limitations for the 1/10 scale rules for D12 and mark my words, we're gonna have FUN running it. :cool:

[Doug Smock]

I know what I'm going to do in penning the motor limitations for the 1/10 scale rules for D12 and mark my words, we're gonna have FUN running it. :cool:

Go for it! :beerchug:
This class and the others should be managed at the club/ District level anyway.:flashfire::flashfire: Tony I need that suit!!

[mpschofield]

Go for it! :beerchug:
This class and the others should be managed at the club/ District level anyway.:flashfire::flashfire: Tony I need that suit!!Hope this attachment works! 163012

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[longballlumber]

Curious, which direction will you be running in D12?

[don ferrette]

Curious, which direction will you be running in D12?

Mike virtually all (one said either way is fine) that have given me feedback and looking to run this class want clockwise so that is going to be how we go.... for now. I have told all who are building or getting ready to put a turn fin backing plate on BOTH sides so if this goes organization wide we will be ready for either way with a few simple changes. :cool: