NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

[Terry Keeley]

Hey guys. First off I don't want to start a $hit storm here but I've heard some of the struggles IMPBA has had to adopt P Limited (or spec if you prefer) rules and as an outsider was wondering what's wrong with the NAMBA rule?

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=64435566455964460802

Basically a 60 mm x 37 mm motor and 34" boat length. Simple. Easy to tech at a Record Trial or for a protest.

Why doesn't IMPBA just adopt this rule for simplicity and conformity across the organizations?

Not to "count our chickens before they're hatched" but we will be applying to the IMPBA Board to have a "Nationals" designation added to our Can-Am race for 2020 and as per IMPBA Rule Book, Section E - II 4a (top of page E3 here: https://nebula.wsimg.com/bba6c9da9b8aa1846b1a0a9be85e1eb9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) we will only be allowed to offer classes in the Rule Book. As you know there are no P-Limited or P-Spec classes currently in the IMPBA rules.

Without this rule in place I can see that many of our FE friends will not be coming to our race next year. This will be a shame and does not comply with Section B-1, Article II-B of our Constitution "The fostering of Model Power Boat Building".

Why can't we get this done? :confused2:

[Fluid]

:hornets_nest:

[Doby]

And we're off................................

[ray schrauwen]

Those that ran these classes at previous CanAm races under IMPBA pretty much followed that same rule. A handful of people use ‘tweaked’ motors but still within NAMBA rule set and tweaked or not makes little difference imo.

Doby don’t matter as he’s just in the clouds these days, haha. Heck, me too in my own way...

God willing I will be out next year and I can handle any rules, just fun too do laps is all.

Good luck Terry.

[jaike5]

:tiphat::popcorn2:

[HTVboats]

I would love to see IMPBA adopt the motor rule and actually recognize and support a growing class. What is the downside? How would it negatively affect racing as we know it?
Mic

[ezhitz]

:popcorn2:

[dethow]

...we will be applying to the IMPBA Board to have a "Nationals" designation added to our Can-Am race for 2020 and as per IMPBA Rule Book, Section E - II 4a (top of page E3 here: https://nebula.wsimg.com/bba6c9da9b8aa1846b1a0a9be85e1eb9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) we will only be allowed to offer classes in the Rule Book. As you know there are no P-Limited or P-Spec classes currently in the IMPBA rules.

Thank you Terry Keeley for taking the time to read and understand the rule book. :hug1:

But as IMPBA leadership did previously (2018 FE Nationals)... they will probably just say you can run them (P-Spec Classes) anyway and use whatever rules the hosting club would like to use. :cursing:

Apparently its easier for them to just NOT follow the rule book then actually put the most popular FE classes into the rule book. :doh:

Good luck with it all... :tiphat:

[dethow]

BTW Terry...
You do have the ability to run the spec classes as exhibition classes at a nationals event.
You just can’t award them with a “National Champion” status on trophies or anything else.
Awards should simply say 1st, 2nd and 3rd place.

Pretty simple stuff... can’t award an IMPBA National Championship to classes which don’t exist in the rule book.
Thank you again, Terry Keeley for reading the rule book and understanding that.
:rules:

[Terry Keeley]

Thank you Terry Keeley for taking the time to read and understand the rule book. :hug1:

But as IMPBA leadership did previously (2018 FE Nationals)... they will probably just say you can run them (P-Spec Classes) anyway and use whatever rules the hosting club would like to use. :cursing:

Apparently its easier for them to just NOT follow the rule book then actually put the most popular FE classes into the rule book. :doh:

Good luck with it all... :tiphat:


Actually the IMPBA Board WAS following the Rule Book at the "2018 FE Nationals" since this was an "Annual International and National Regatta" as specified on page E3 of the Rule Book: https://nebula.wsimg.com/bba6c9da9b8aa1846b1a0a9be85e1eb9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Here's the part that applies:

2. An IMPBA National Regatta will consist of multi-boat heat racing run using one of the approved
Nationals formats.
a. Established IMPBA engine classifications will be offered for National Champion status.
b. Optional special events may be offered.
c. A minimum of 6 boats per class must be presented for racing.
d. The winners at an IMPBA National Regatta will be awarded “National Champion”. Special
events winners will be awarded First, Second, Third Place.

What I mean is if a club is awarded a "Nats or Nationals" designation, as the rules are now a new club could not offer "special events". I've submitted a proposal to our IMPBA President to change this unfair rule, it should be discussed and voted on in December.

Hopefully the Board will see that this is unfair and unjust to new clubs should they be awarded a (regional) "Nats or Nationals" designation.

[T.S.Davis]

Sorry Terry. Yer making me giggle. You know where I am on it. I'm not the only one of the same opinion you just expressed. There are other districts asking the same kind of questions. It's a safe wager that it doesn't matter. Our guys already collected 5 signatures but we likely wont submit. Kind of a waste of time and I'm simply not up to the fall out.

Of note, we only hit 3 good sized races this summer. All 3 had different rules for limited. Atlanta, is different than NAMBA. Michigan Cup was different from Atlanta and NAMBA. The CanAm was different than NAMBA, the Cup, and Atlanta.

You "could" offer them for your event as exhibition as Dave described. However if I remember correctly, for your gig you will need a max boat count in the 230-235 range. Somewhere in there. Based on your expected client/racer it would make more sense to increase the allowed number of gas mono/cat/T boat (or something) than it would to add exhibition classes. Just makes sense. I don't know. Above my pay grade.

[T.S.Davis]

b. Optional special events may be offered.


Not to get all lawyer...y but do they define "special event" anywhere? We don't refer to any other classes as "events" but "special events" means exhibition classes? Other places in the book like for instance a racer with three penalties should be disqualified from the "event". But for a nats we assume that a "special event" is a class. Makes no damned sense at all.

If a driver incurs 3 of any combination of Infraction Penalties or Heat Disqualifications during the course of a sanctioned racing event regardless of the hull or motor classes the penalties were committed, the driver will be disqualified from the entire event and all points accumulated during that event will be lost.

Nobody realizes either that what I just posted includes lane infractions as well as DQ's. I never realized either that enforcement is in fact NOT optional. Blew that call a coupe times at a single event. Tangent! Sorry.

[dethow]

Actually the IMPBA Board WAS following the Rule Book at the "2018 FE Nationals" since this was an "Annual International and National Regatta" as specified on page E3 of the Rule Book: https://nebula.wsimg.com/bba6c9da9b8aa1846b1a0a9be85e1eb9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Here's the part that applies:

2. An IMPBA National Regatta will consist of multi-boat heat racing run using one of the approved
Nationals formats.
a. Established IMPBA engine classifications will be offered for National Champion status.
b. Optional special events may be offered.
c. A minimum of 6 boats per class must be presented for racing.
d. The winners at an IMPBA National Regatta will be awarded ?National Champion?. Special events winners will be awarded First, Second, Third Place.

What I mean is if a club is awarded a "Nats or Nationals" designation, as the rules are now a new club could not offer "special events". I've submitted a proposal to our IMPBA President to change this unfair rule, it should be discussed and voted on in December.

Hopefully the Board will see that this is unfair and unjust to new clubs should they be awarded a (regional) "Nats or Nationals" designation.

Yes Terry they were allowed to include Spec as Special Events or Exhibition Classes as I called them. But were it went wrong is that can?t award Special Events with a National Champion status on the awards. It specifically says that in the rules.
d. The winners at an IMPBA National Regatta will be awarded ?National Champion?. Special
events winners will be awarded First, Second, Third Place.

[Terry Keeley]

Sorry Terry. Yer making me giggle. You know where I am on it. I'm not the only one of the same opinion you just expressed. There are other districts asking the same kind of questions. It's a safe wager that it doesn't matter. Our guys already collected 5 signatures but we likely wont submit. Kind of a waste of time and I'm simply not up to the fall out.

Of note, we only hit 3 good sized races this summer. All 3 had different rules for limited. Atlanta, is different than NAMBA. Michigan Cup was different from Atlanta and NAMBA. The CanAm was different than NAMBA, the Cup, and Atlanta.

You "could" offer them for your event as exhibition as Dave described. However if I remember correctly, for your gig you will need a max boat count in the 230-235 range. Somewhere in there. Based on your expected client/racer it would make more sense to increase the allowed number of gas mono/cat/T boat (or something) than it would to add exhibition classes. Just makes sense. I don't know. Above my pay grade.


Bummer. Sorry, I thought we were offering P Limited as you guys run it, I pulled the wording right off your MMEU site IIRC.

No matter, what I'm asking is why not just make it like the NAMBA Rule? Simple, easy to tech Sunday night at a Record Trial, in the dark, at 40* in the pouring rain!

I think your original proposal had a weight limit correct? To prevent guys from re-winding the arms? I've also heard this doesn't make a huge difference in performance, maybe just reliability? If so why not scrap that part as NAMBA obviously has in the interest of simplicity?

In the end what this all boils down to for us is that we WANT you guys to be part of our Can-Am event. Sure we could probably fill the classes with more LSG and possibly Nitro but having all three power sources is super cool IMHO. It represents what we "do" as a hobby/sport! :smile:

ps: "special event" has always been interpreted as anything the host club wants to run at THEIR "International Regatta". They've run Thunderboats at the Nitro Nats, Single F hydro, Twin Hydro (before it was an official class) etc, etc. Your "P Limited" classes were run under this clause I'm sure, the only stipulations I see is that they're run after the "official" classes ('93 Nats in Ft. Wayne ran out of time IIRC) and that you don't award "National Champion" (or US1) trophies.

[Terry Keeley]

Yes Terry they were allowed to include Spec as Special Events or Exhibition Classes as I called them. But were it went wrong is that can?t award Special Events with a National Champion status on the awards. It specifically says that in the rules.
d. The winners at an IMPBA National Regatta will be awarded ?National Champion?. Special
events winners will be awarded First, Second, Third Place.

If "special classes" were awarded "National Champion" trophies that was probably just an unfortunate oversight.

In the "Big Picture" though there was an IMPBA "Fast Electric National Regatta", the first one run in 17 years! Classes were run as per our IMPBA Rule book and special events were run that were clearly defined for all well in advance.

Cudos for the host MMEU club for hosting such a prestigious event. If you came away from that with an award you should be very proud! :smile:

[T.S.Davis]

In the end what this all boils down to for us is that we WANT you guys to be part of our Can-Am event. Sure we could probably fill the classes with more LSG and possibly Nitro but having all three power sources is super cool IMHO. It represents what we "do" as a hobby/sport! :smile:


Thanks Terry. We enjoy attending. I've never been a fuel guy. In fact, for a long time I wasn't a fan of mixed events but between you guys and he Atlanta gang I've come to really enjoy it. We get to see it all. Very partial to Thunderboats. I've also found that we're all the same. Model boaters. We're an odd lot. A little quirky. A lot silly. Mostly though.......everybody wants to have fun. Of course it's competition. Otherwise why bother but I think the vast majority see the hobby for what it is.

The only difference between what we proposed and what NAMBA adopted was 2mm in length. No weight limit was included.

I wasn't being critical of your event on the limited rule thing either. Only pointing out that there was a difference from race to race even though the intention was to be the same.

[dethow]

If "special classes" were awarded "National Champion" trophies that was probably just an unfortunate oversight.

I really don?t want to get into this mess again... but it was NO oversight Terry. The questions of if Spec classes would be awarded National Champion status came up months in advance of the race. I personally talked to the FE Director on the phone and made the leadership at MMEU aware of the problem months before the race. I was told to go pound sand. In the words of an individual with IMPBA leadership... they can do whatever they want.
All of that is what lead to me publicly calling out IMPBA for not following the rules. They felt that as long as they could get away with allowing the spec classes to race and be awarded National Championship status then there would be no reason to EVER put the classes in the rule book.
The FE Director personally told me that I?m the only one who cares that the rules aren?t be followed. They knew... but they viewed that allowing the rules to be skated around was better then allowing spec classes in the rule book. The FE Director as told me that if he has his way Spec classes will never be in the rule book and that if there is another FE Nats he would still allow National Champion status on the awards. Again... this was NO OVERSIGHT.

None the less... I’m not going to re-litigate that mess. Bottom line is that it sounds like you understand the rules and plan on following them. For that I clap my hands and hope the IMPBA leadership doesn’t lead you down a road of skating around the rules the way they previously did. Push your original question... push to get Spec Classes in the rule book. That’s what should be done. That’s what I was pushing for.

[Terry Keeley]

I really don?t want to get into this mess again... but it was NO oversight Terry. The questions of if Spec classes would be awarded National Champion status came up months in advance of the race. I personally talked to the FE Director on the phone and made the leadership at MMEU aware of the problem months before the race. I was told to go pound sand. In the words of an individual with IMPBA leadership... they can do whatever they want.
All of that is what lead to me publicly calling out IMPBA for not following the rules. They felt that as long as they could get away with allowing the spec classes to race and be awarded National Championship status then there would be no reason to EVER put the classes in the rule book.
The FE Director personally told me that I?m the only one who cares that the rules aren?t be followed. They knew... but they viewed that allowing the rules to be skated around was better then allowing spec classes in the rule book. The FE Director as told me that if he has his way Spec classes will never be in the rule book and that if there is another FE Nats he would still allow National Champion status on the awards. Again... this was NO OVERSIGHT.


Oh well, if it happened as you say (there are always two sides to every story or course) it was a mistake, they do happen you know. Again, in the big scheme of things it really isn't that important, what IS important is that there was an IMPBA "FE National Regatta" that was well attended and fun for all. That's what this is supposed to be about, right?

I won't discuss this anymore as it is ancient history and flogging a dead horse doesn't benefit anyone.

It's also not why I started this thread if you read my original post again. :wink:

[T.S.Davis]

Why can't we get this done? :confused2:

It could be that the concern is that FE has too many classes already. We do. For sure. The problem with FE is that as it evolves we keep every class on the books regardless of need. This isn't unique to IMPBA. Once it's in there it's forever.

[Terry Keeley]

It could be that the concern is that FE has too many classes already. We do. For sure. The problem with FE is that as it evolves we keep every class on the books regardless of need. This isn't unique to IMPBA. Once it's in there it's forever.

Yup! I'm sure that has a lot to do with it but from what I see on the outside looking in is that "P-Limited" is a very popular class and should be in the Rule Book. If the only difference between what you proposed and the NAMBA rule is 2mm maybe that's not the real issue, maybe it IS that there will be too many classes.

Maybe what you guys really need to do is pare down some of the classes that aren't run much anymore. The gas guys did this a few years ago when they eliminated "other than" piston port intakes, the records were archived and the other classes prospered. We are kinda in the same boat in nitro IMHO, we have classes that are not run much but are in the books, too many classes for too few contestants.

So, if that's the real issue (too many classes) why don't you look at cleaning house a bit? I know it will be unpopular with the record holders but if they are archived their names are there forever showing their accomplishments. And the majority will be better off.

Do you really need "N Stock" AND "N Super Stock"? What about N (2 cell)? Do you really need Q, S & T? What about just a T? (10 cell). What about a "big cell" class only that has 6-10 cells? I don't see much difference in speeds for these records.

That's what I'd be looking at if I were you guys.

ps: It doesn't have to in there forever, classes can and are removed. The organization is very democratic if you follow procedures and go through the proper channels...

[T.S.Davis]

Terry, I tried to do exactly as you described. It was an effort to get rid of something useless and replace it with something that made heats. I was shot down on paring down the classes too. We have to save those old classes for one or two guys that ran them at a time trial once per year. We haven't seen a heat of some classes for 5 plus years now.

[Peter A]

I can't help but continue to be amazed at how badly grown men can behave over toy boats. Not you guys here, it's those who seem to like to run and control associations, ignoring the membership, constitutions and so on. Sort of spoils the fun doesn't it?
The class thing is the thing really. Like you guys, we now have 10 gazillion FE classes but can hardly put together anything more than P mono as a class at a regatta. Mostly this was done by one person just so they could set as many records as possible. Something because it exists I have been able to do as well, but whatever for that, I am over our national association and their bs!
Looking at how to grow FE in our club I am thinking through what will work best, be fair for racing, simple and generally affordable.
So far I am at;
P-Q Offshore and Hydro, max 6000 mah.
Open Electric, max 12s 10,000mah.
Pretty much just three classes, hard to be any more simple.

[HTVboats]

I do not think we should use the logic that there are too many classes to suppress a popular and functioning class. Who cares how many classes are in the rule book. It does not mean your club has to offer them on a flyer. People will build and support boats that others in their area are running. Numbers will dictate what runs. Not having consistent national rules for maybe the largest group of FE racers is a shame and does not help promote growth.
Yes N-S and T are rarely run and if offered at a national event there would need to be some minimum number to make the class. P and Q then maybe open would cover things then add limited classes to suit the needs in an area.
Gas keeps adding classes almost every time we turn around and they are filling them and growing.
Mic

[Peter A]

Just so there is no confusion, I am in New Zealand and our club numbers only 15 or so. Mostly it is gassers but the interest in electric is growing...slowly. There are some issues in getting batteries, mostly at reasonable prices, it means buying out of HobbyKing Australia and a four week delivery. Most other stuff is available with no real problems from OSE and other sites. Next to no FE stuff available in NZ apart from the pathetic RTR offerings (Sonicwake!)
In another perspective, the entire New Zealand Model Powerboat Association numbers only in the 50's, and very likely to be a few less next year! They just don't get the bit where they need boaters more than the boaters need them!

[T.S.Davis]

You may be right Mic but when last I proposed a limited to IMPBA there were some that felt we already had too many. Myself included. I wanted to drop the 2s classes. All of them. It would have cleared out 13 classes that haven't made heats that I'm aware of in years. Key being "that I'm aware of". I don't know everyone obviously.

I just looked again. IMPBA FE has 5 power levels and 5 hull classifications. So that's 25 classes. Then N stock and N super stock adds 8 more. So that's 33. Then throw in scale unlimited for a grand total of 34 classes to get distracted by. If "limited" was added that makes for 39 classes to choose from if you open the book. Not sure about NAMBA. I penned and filed 10th scale vintage and modern. I didn't bother with signatures on that. We'll just run that locally.

I wonder how many gas classes there actually are. I'm not sure I could even figure it out. I'm so fuel ignorant.

[Terry Keeley]

You may be right Mic but when last I proposed a limited to IMPBA there were some that felt we already had too many. Myself included. I wanted to drop the 2s classes. All of them. It would have cleared out 13 classes that haven't made heats that I'm aware of in years. Key being "that I'm aware of". I don't know everyone obviously.

I just looked again. IMPBA FE has 5 power levels and 5 hull classifications. So that's 25 classes. Then N stock and N super stock adds 8 more. So that's 33. Then throw in scale unlimited for a grand total of 34 classes to get distracted by. If "limited" was added that makes for 39 classes to choose from if you open the book. Not sure about NAMBA. I penned and filed 10th scale vintage and modern. I didn't bother with signatures on that. We'll just run that locally.

I wonder how many gas classes there actually are. I'm not sure I could even figure it out. I'm so fuel ignorant.

Wow! That's a lot of classes, I still dread "How to tech a Paradox" should someone set an N Stock or N Super Stock record at Flint one of these years.

Pretty easy to see how many classes there are, just look at the records: https://www.impba.net/rule-book.html

If it's a recognized National class there's a record for it. The largest segment of our hobby (LSG) has only 17 classes, they realized what was working, cut the fat off the bone and archived the old records. Nitro and FE could learn from that. I hear you too Mic, but if there's only so many boaters to go around having a limited number of classes works best. Guys don't usually check what's popular in their area, they look at what's available and then build it to find there's no one to race against. Or they race it in their area only to find out no one else in the country races it.

Then they just quit and do something else.

ps: Here's what happened to L, N-1, O-1 & O-2 ten years ago: https://nebula.wsimg.com/aafae9236727f6c7145038c34dce35b9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

[T.S.Davis]

Ed was the cream of the crop. That gauge by which all will be measured hence forth IMO.

[Terry Keeley]

Ed was the cream of the crop. That gauge by which all will be measured hence forth IMO.

That's for sure! Very generous soul that gave much of himself to our hobby/sport.

Godspeed Ed! :smile:

[Diegoboy]

[Reaching into pockets] ...look, i want to thank you guys for maintaining composure here. I know this is a sensitive topic and you all seem to remember that no matter which side of the fence you sit, the ones replying here are not your enemy and not the individual(s) responsible for your frustrations.
I've got $0.02 to chime in on the class removal discussion. I had an N cat that i ran in SAW, although no one seems to run N in heat racing, if they remove the class then i can no longer run N in any SAW event. So does that make the latest record holder forever on the books with no way to challenge?

[T.S.Davis]

I don't think they're going anywhere Danny. The BOD slam dunked that idea outright.

It's remaining civil because I simply refuse to respond to efforts to paint Tom and I as a tyrants.

[Terry Keeley]

[Reaching into pockets] ...look, i want to thank you guys for maintaining composure here. I know this is a sensitive topic and you all seem to remember that no matter which side of the fence you sit, the ones replying here are not your enemy and not the individual(s) responsible for your frustrations.
I've got $0.02 to chime in on the class removal discussion. I had an N cat that i ran in SAW, although no one seems to run N in heat racing, if they remove the class then i can no longer run N in any SAW event. So does that make the latest record holder forever on the books with no way to challenge?


Thanks for cleaning this up a bit, like I said also I'm not into flogging a dead horse, only moving forward.

Yes, if official classes are removed from the Rule book the records are archived forever, just like what I posted above with the L, N-1, O-1 & O-2 records.

I talked to our new President Matt Schofield yesterday, he said the original proposal is still valid, it had just been "tabled" when it was last discussed. This usually happens when the Board is unsure of a proposal or needs more information. From what I understand it will be brought up again at the December Board meeting and could be modified, put back on the table or voted on as is.

Again, if I were you guys I'd seriously look at pairing down some of your classes that are just not run anymore and archiving the Records. That would make room for what's running now, like P Limited.

[Steven Vaccaro]

Although this is like beating a dead horse, Im with Danny, and will leave this thread open. As long as we can keep it clean and "punch" free. At this point whats happened in the past cant be changed. Unless you believe the current person holds a position of leadership, if that's the case vote for change.

Lets move this forward. I to think it would be nice to have a set of matching rules for both organizations. The small number of racers being my number factor.

[Terry Keeley]

Although this is like beating a dead horse, Im with Danny, and will leave this thread open. As long as we can keep it clean and "punch" free. At this point whats happened in the past cant be changed. Unless you believe the current person holds a position of leadership, if that's the case vote for change.

Lets move this forward. I to think it would be nice to have a set of matching rules for both organizations. The small number of racers being my number factor.


No need for punching, just trying to help you guys as an outsider looking in (I'm a nitro guy but model boater at heart).

I've been boating and an IMPBA member for 45 years, I'm CD of the Can-Am race here in Toronto and two Record Trials a year in Flint, MI. I served on the IMPBA Board as Records Director for 8 years in the 90's and early 2000's. I have a good idea how these things work.

I want to try to help you guys as I can see you want to move forward but seem to be stuck. I'm good at "getting things done", maybe I can nudge you in the right direction and hopefully something good comes of this for model boating...

[Steven Vaccaro]

I want to try to help you guys as I can see you want to move forward but seem to be stuck. I'm good at "getting things done", maybe I can nudge you in the right direction and hopefully something good comes of this for model boating...

Sounds like a plan. Let me know if I can help.

Ive been taking more time off as I get older, so I hope to be able to attend this race someday.

[Terry Keeley]

Sorry, I was given bad information, the original proposal was turned down (or terminated as they call it now).

Minutes of the Feb. 2018 meeting are here:

https://nebula.wsimg.com/1b26b1f95fb3c5c5c378ffdc9a9f89e9?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

So moving forward that means you guys can start with a clean sheet of paper!

What about cleaning up the classes first, then adding a P Limited? :olleyes:

[Terry Keeley]

I just had a good conversation with your National Fast Electric Director, Mike Ball.

I offered my input on the subject of P Limited classes and the issue of too many classes as both a Contest Director for one of the largest races in the organization plus two Record Trials per year.

He listened well. He gave me some technical information, some history on the subjects and also some concerns he and others have relating to these two topics.

I can say I am optimistic these "issues" will be resolved sooner rather than later on a National level within the IMPBA.

My recommendations were to eliminate N, N Stock, N Super Stock and combine S & T. Archive the records so that the current Record holders are recognized forever. Add a P Limited motor class. These changes would take the current class count from 33 to 21 and be much more relevant to today's FE scene.

Create a P Limited class based on a can size as NAMBA has done (inrunner design, 37 x 60). Mike had concerns the 60 mm length limit may be too long and 57 or 58 mm might be better, OK. We also had a lengthy discussion about re-winding the motors and I think I made my point that if you stipulate the motors may not be modified in any way that the IMPBA protest procedure could take care of that. I heard that anyone (even me that routinely lets the magic smoke out of anything electric) could tell visually if a motor has been re-wound or not. Remenber, if someone was caught cheating the news would spread so fast the cheater would have to find another hobby.

There would of course be an extremely slim chance someone could hire a commercial re-winder to make a re-wind look exactly like the stock unit but that would be rare and the advantage would be small (might add 2-3 mph to a 55 mph Sport Hydro Mike said). Remember, these things have to be teched in the dark on Sunday night at 40* in the rain! Having to keep a certified gram scale to determine the difference between a stock motor and one that has been re-wound is both expensive and impractical.

Here's the IMPBA protest procedure in case you're not familiar:

IV - PROTESTS
The contestant, by entering a contest or Record Trial, automatically grants the right of inspection by Protest
Procedure. Should a contestant refuse inspection, the Protest will be judged valid and penalties will be issued
as outlined in “Protest Fees and Illegal Equipment Fines”, this section.

A. Protest Procedure:
1. Any Protest of an engine or hull must be made during a contest, and not later than 30
minutes after the last heat/run.
a. The equipment will be allowed to run only until the Protest can be evaluated.
b. The equipment will be immediately measured and reviewed by a Committee made up of
the Contest Director, IMPBA District Director (if available), and two disinterested IMPBA
members.
c. All reviewing and measuring will be done in conjunction with the "IMPBA Engine Rules"
as written. These rules are the law and the only grounds for Protest.
d. Protestor and owner or proxy must be notified, and can be present during the review.
e. If the Protest is upheld, and the equipment judged illegal, a written report outlining the
infraction ruling must be forwarded to the District Director and President within two days
of the Protest. Contest Director plus two Committee members must sign the report.
f. If for some reason the Committee cannot make a ruling, a written report, complete with
sketches, if necessary, will be forwarded to the IMPBA President who will distribute
copies to the Technical Committee for final judgment.

B. Protest Fees and Illegal Equipment Fines
1. The Protestor shall pay a $5.00 Protest Fee.
a. If the Protest is denied, the fee will be retained by the host club to defray expenses.
b. If the Protest is upheld, and the equipment declared illegal, the Protestor will receive his
Protest fee back.
2. Fines for running illegal engines and hulls:
a. Offenses are cumulative in a calendar year and are chargeable to the owner.
1st offense $25.00
2nd offense $50.00 and suspension from competition for 1 year
3rd offense expulsion from organization
b. IMPBA General Office will record offenses and send a registered letter to the owner
requesting payment of fine.
c. Fine must be paid within 20 days of notification.
d. Non-payment will result in cancellation of all IMPBA privileges for the succeeding twelve
(12) months.

[photohoward1]

That so simple. Been saying it to deaf ears for years. Hope you are successful. Being one of the only S AND T racers Most races S AND T is combined into Open! There are so few of us. N is a waste. P Q and T. My vote. Spec 37x60. If we spec 58 we may back our selves into a corner again. Simple can changes kill it. Like thicker end-bells and bearings. Manufactures change those often.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T.S.Davis]

I wouldn't care if they were re-wound but I understand.

[photohoward1]

untechable!

I wouldn't care if they were re-wound but I understand.

[don ferrette]

That so simple. Been saying it to deaf ears for years. Hope you are successful. Being one of the only S AND T racers Most races S AND T is combined into Open! There are so few of us. N is a waste. P Q and T. My vote. Spec 37x60. If we spec 58 we may back our selves into a corner again. Simple can changes kill it. Like thicker end-bells and bearings. Manufactures change those often.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely agree with everything except combining S and T. Leave that be and let combining be done at club/district discretion. A few years back when I went all in on FE at record trials the S records were actually a little tougher to set than the T records. Kill off the N classes and archive the records. Absolutely go 37 x 60mm for P limited (we spec'd the same for the new D12 1/10th scale unlimited rules) at that little extra length it opens up motor choices and OMG dare I say it at 37 x 60mm we'd be the same as NAMBA.
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[T.S.Davis]

OMG dare I say it at 37 x 60mm we'd be the same as NAMBA.

If yer gonna blaspheme we can't hang out. That reminds me. When are you coming to Michigan ya slacker? Maybe we could get some scales going.

[Terry Keeley]

If the Records are any indication the S records are actually faster than the T records in six out of the ten records for SAW and 1/3rd oval for the five hull classes. Where the T classes are higher it is only by a very small margin (except T Mono SAW which Doug Smock put way up there).

https://nebula.wsimg.com/b0c815733fd8425ff24b779cff59f4a1?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Is there really THAT much difference between 7/8 cell and 9/10 cell to warrant another 15 record classes? Wouldn't a 7-10 cell class do?

Why was FE 1/8 Scale brought in as S/T?

[raptor347]

We gave up on the unmodified wording. Manufacturers have enough variation that you can't tell if something is rewound or not. I know Don Huff is rewinding motors, it's not a problem.

No solution for the number of classes yet.

[dethow]

Create a P Limited class based on a can size as NAMBA has done (inrunner design, 37 x 60). Mike had concerns the 60 mm length limit may be too long and 57 or 58 mm might be better, OK. We also had a lengthy discussion about re-winding the motors and I think I made my point that if you stipulate the motors may not be modified in any way that the IMPBA protest procedure could take care of that. I heard that anyone (even me that routinely lets the magic smoke out of anything electric) could tell visually if a motor has been re-wound or not. Remenber, if someone was caught cheating the news would spread so fast the cheater would have to find another hobby.

There would of course be an extremely slim chance someone could hire a commercial re-winder to make a re-wind look exactly like the stock unit but that would be rare and the advantage would be small (might add 2-3 mph to a 55 mph Sport Hydro Mike said). Remember, these things have to be teched in the dark on Sunday night at 40* in the rain! Having to keep a certified gram scale to determine the difference between a stock motor and one that has been re-wound is both expensive and impractical.

The can size issue has been discussed and debated at length. It went from 62mm to 60mm for good reason and does NOT go from 60mm to 58mm for good reason.
Mr. Ball doesn't agree and he stands firm on his position.

The re-wind issue has been discussed and debated at length.
It can't be tech'd and as Mr. Ball told you, the advantage would be small (might add 2-3 mph on a 55 mph Sport Hydro).
It's not worth the tech issues to put something in the rule, but Mr. Ball will not let his feeling on that go.

These are issues that Mr. Ball has expressed and doesn't let go of. No matter how many people disagree, Mr. Ball keeps the skepticism going with these two talking points.

The whole thing falls on Mr. Ball (FE Director) and the rest of the IMPBA BODs approving a proposal to move forward for membership vote. Based on Mr. Ball's continued concern on those two issues I don't see him or the rest of the BODs approving a proposal similar to that of NAMBA. I actually don't see them approving anything put in front of them.
If you put 37mm x 60mm in front of them, Mr. Ball would say its too long and doesn't address the re-wind possibility.
If you put 37mm x 58mm with verbiage of no modifications, Mr. Ball would then say its impossible to tech and he'd be right.
If you put 37mm x 58mm only, Mr. Ball would say he has concerns about re-winds. And even if it did get past the BODs, it probably wouldn't get membership vote because most have made it clear that 60mm is the desired length for reasons which have been debated and most other then Mr. Ball seem to be in agreement on.

It is my belief that someone needs to just put in a proposal for 37mm x 60mm identical to NAMBA and see what happens. I think at this point it has all been debated so much... and that is the conciseness of what racers want. There is no silver bullet solution that is going to address every question/concern that Mr. Mike Ball may be able to bring up.

Mr. Ball and the rest of the BODs can either choose to approve the proposal and allow it to go forward for membership vote... Or they can resign to the fact that P-Limited/Spec classes can be run at a Nationals Event as a "Special Event" with winners being awarded First, Second, Third Place... No "National Champion". I also don't think that points from those "Special Events" would be able to be counted towards a President's Cup or any other combined points awards.

And that's no big deal... Does anyone really need to have "National Champion" on their P-Limited/Spec trophies?
We could let rules flow and change at the club level... and still run the P-Limited/Spec classes at National Events based on host club rules which will be approved by the BODs and posted on the race flyer.

The draw backs would be:
- Not having a national rule set for beginners to see and understand.
- Will have different clubs running different rules which could effect turnout at larger events.
- Different clubs running different rules will make it more difficult for people to discuss and/or find help on forums like this.
- Dealers such as Offshore Electrics will have a harder time providing ARTR models which fit a buyer's local club rules.
- Racers will be more likely to be forced to change motors in their entire fleet based on never ending changes at the club level and/or trying to meet host club rule differences.
- And I'm sure there's more that I'm just not thinking about...

Mr. Ball and the rest of the BODs will just have to weigh all that out.
The BODs could just end up having the opinion that status-quo is fine. But I guess they may be forgetting that there wasn't an FE Nationals Event in years before 2018 and it doesn't look like it will be happening any time soon again. And that the membership is lacking in FE racers and clubs for a reason... No national rule set for the most popular classes. But if they're fine with status-quo then they are fine with not promoting FE racing. Because status-quo is not doing that.

[don ferrette]

If the Records are any indication the S records are actually faster than the T records in six out of the ten records for SAW and 1/3rd oval for the five hull classes. Where the T classes are higher it is only by a very small margin (except T Mono SAW which Doug Smock put way up there).

https://nebula.wsimg.com/b0c815733fd8425ff24b779cff59f4a1?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Is there really THAT much difference between 7/8 cell and 9/10 cell to warrant another 15 record classes? Wouldn't a 7-10 cell class do?

Why was FE 1/8 Scale brought in as S/T?

That same "logic" could be said about E and F outboard tunnels, DEAD racing classes and even national levels BUT guys still run both at trials. Apples to oranges as less than one percent do record trials anyways...........

[longballlumber]

I am just going to leave this here... It speaks volumes about length. The majority (not all, but most) are still racing competitively with the AquaCraft, Proboat, and ProMarine motors.

166564

[HTVboats]

If the Records are any indication the S records are actually faster than the T records in six out of the ten records for SAW and 1/3rd oval for the five hull classes. Where the T classes are higher it is only by a very small margin (except T Mono SAW which Doug Smock put way up there).

https://nebula.wsimg.com/b0c815733fd8425ff24b779cff59f4a1?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Is there really THAT much difference between 7/8 cell and 9/10 cell to warrant another 15 record classes? Wouldn't a 7-10 cell class do?

Why was FE 1/8 Scale brought in as S/T?

Yes there is a power difference between 8 and 10 cells (S & T) I can only speak for CAT ,OB and Mono where I have built record boats. When we run T, the limit of our times is the boat design that can't handle the power. A hull can only corner so fast and adding power may loose time in turns. When I started records for Cats the Q SAW was a hundred plus and the 2 lap 32 seconds. Now my Q Cat won't run 75mph but will run a 24 second two lap. Look at the SAW records and power will show speed differences.
Don is correct so few run records and there are classes that will never run in heats anywhere. Does it hurt anyone to have classes in the book? Should I never build a steam powered boat cause it won't be in the book anymore. Those obscure records give some of us tinkerers who want a challenge a format. Remember your records are meant to be broken that's why you are only a record holder. It is a different form of competition I hope will continue as it does advance technology that we all benefit from.
Mic

[HTVboats]

In the NAMBA rules S class has an asterisk - for records only. T class legal voltage is listed from 18.5 to 42.3 which essentially is Q,S, and T combined or effectively Open. I like IMPBA for things like bouy point deductions vs. a lap penalty and as far as FE rules NAMBA has an edge. I wish either group would just recognize what makes sense and copy where it advances the sport. Both organizations have some pretty sound and experienced minds.
Mic

[Terry Keeley]

That same "logic" could be said about E and F outboard tunnels, DEAD racing classes and even national levels BUT guys still run both at trials. Apples to oranges as less than one percent do record trials anyways...........


True. There's 31 classes for records in nitro x 3 = 93 records. Half of them should be archived IMHO.

Steam? Lol! I was there when he set it in '94.

And don't get me started on 1/4 mile...

[Terry Keeley]

I am just going to leave this here... It speaks volumes about length. The majority (not all, but most) are still racing competitively with the AquaCraft, Proboat, and ProMarine motors.

166564


Why the variations in length for different motors of the same make? Are they different models or variations of the same model?

[dethow]

I am just going to leave this here... It speaks volumes about length. The majority (not all, but most) are still racing competitively with the AquaCraft, Proboat, and ProMarine motors.

166564

You are correct Mr. Ball... it does speak volume about lengths. It shows that manufactures have variations in what they produce.

ProMarine SSS range from 55.6mm to 60.4mm. Over the 6 motors measured, 2 or 33.3% were over 58.0mm and 1 was over 60.0mm
TP Power range from 57.5mm to 59.0mm. Over the 6 motors measured, 2 or 33.3% were over 58.0mm.

Additionally... Over the several years of racing, the motors which measure between 58mm to 60mm have shown ZERO advantage.

Additionally... The 60mm length limit leaves room for manufacturing variations and in case any future RTR boats come out with slightly larger motors. We don't want people having to play games with suppliers by returning motors until they get one that fits the 58mm limit. And we don't want to force people to pull new motors out of brand new boats when nothing has shown that the additional 2mm will provide any significant advantage.

Additionally... There are many 60mm motors in the market that were not part of this study conducted. Leopard is a prime example of this. Leopard is a very popular motor and thus the scenario could exist that we could have a recreational sport boater who is approached to come to a race at a local club. This boated has leopard motors in his 2 boats that measure 60mm and now the only reason the club can't get him to come race is because he'd have to replace his motors. Now we all know those motors will not provide any advantage and most likely if he has a good time he'll choose on his own to upgrade his motor in order to be more competitive.

This has been debated already and the majority agree with 60mm length as evidenced by comments in this thread and the NAMBA membership vote. Mr. Terry Davis started in the last debate on this with your thought process of 57mm to 58mm and by the end of the thread he had conceded that 60mm makes more sense. I'm not sure Mr. Ball... but I think you may be the only one who is looking for under 60mm length. If others exist, I haven't seen them speak up in a while.

I (we) hear your concerns and as I've said... there is no silver bullet to answer all the questions you could bring up. If one tried there could be questions posed about almost every class... For example: How do we know the mAh labels are correct on batteries and how do we measure and tech that in a consistent method? Do we not allow batteries in the boats because there is no absolute answer to that question?

[dethow]

Why the variations in length for different motors of the same make? Are they different models or variations of the same model?

EXACTLY... Terry. They are variations of the same model.
This is the exact reason the 62mm was the original thought. But that turned out to be just a tick to much and made it possible to cut down larger motors to fit the 62mm length. Reduction to 60mm removes that possibility but still leaves room for manufacturing variations.

[Steven Vaccaro]

Over the last 20 years of selling motors, Ive seen many variations in motor length, can diameter and design drive us all nuts. Manufacturers don't tell us about changes, then one day we get a new batch of motors that are different. When questioned, the manufacture says "sorry or this is a new design". There needs to be a true +/- built into the rule. But Ive never seen a motor labeled 36 diameter come in at 37mm or a motor in the 50 or 55mm length size come in at 60mm plus.

The only people that will get caught breaking the rule, will be those trying to push the limits by buying 3660 motors or similar.

[dethow]

But Ive never seen a motor labeled 36 diameter come in at 37mm or a motor in the 50 or 55mm length size come in at 60mm plus.

I'm assuming you've seen a 36mm diameter come in at 36.1 to 36.5mm thou??? Which is why it was just rounded up to an even 37mm diameter limit.

Have you seen a 50mm or 55mm length come in at 58mm to 60mm? I'd assume that number would be VERY small if at all.
But have you seen a 55mm to 58mm motor come in at 58.1mm to 60mm? I'd imagine that number would be between 33% to 50%.

[Steven Vaccaro]

I'm assuming you've seen a 36mm diameter come in at 36.1 to 36.5mm thou??? Which is why it was just rounded up to an even 37mm diameter limit.

Have you seen a 50mm or 55mm length come in at 58mm to 60mm? I'd assume that number would be VERY small if at all.
But have you seen a 55mm to 58mm motor come in at 58mm to 60mm? I'd imagine that number would be between 33% to 50%.

Ive seen all of those, that's why I like the 37 x 60mm limit.

[Terry Keeley]

Ive seen all of those, that's why I like the 37 x 60mm limit.

Sounds like you guys got it right...

[Doby]

Lets open the can even further:

Better make sure that any measuring devices are calibrated to an acceptable standard. Then the calibration would need to be maintained on a scheduled basis and records kept.

Using some cheap plastic caliper vs a decent metal one will yield different results as well.

Perhaps both NAMBA and IMPBA could supply the devices and send them for use to wherever "Nats", "Trials"..or whatever are being run.

A defined measuring procedure should be standardized as well.

If my 60mm motor is measured and found to be a "hair" over by one of the "Terrys" at an event...and I'm not allowed to race, but I measured it and the manufacturer says its 60mm... you had better have your ducks in a row to prove how and what you measure it by and with.

(P.S...not picking on the "Terrys"....but you guys are generally the organizers of the biggest events around here and therefore have to deal with any potential headaches:cursing:)

Are timing devices used calibrated? If so, how?
Voltmeters? If so, how?
Are hull lengths ever verified? If so, How?
Are other hull dimensions verified? If so, How?

If people going to be held to a certain specified requirement, better be able to accurately verify it.

How something is verified is just as important as the specification.

Careful when opening the can...sometimes the worms get out and create a mess.:scared::scared:

[Terry Keeley]

Lets open the can even further:

Better make sure that any measuring devices are calibrated to an acceptable standard. Then the calibration would need to be maintained on a scheduled basis and records kept.

Using some cheap plastic caliper vs a decent metal one will yield different results as well.

Perhaps both NAMBA and IMPBA could supply the devices and send them for use to wherever "Nats", "Trials"..or whatever are being run.

A defined measuring procedure should standardized as well.

If my 60mm motor is measured and found to be a "hair" over by one of the "Terrys" at an event...and I'm not allowed to race, but I measured it and the manufacturer says its 60mm... you had better have your ducks in a row to prove how and what you measure it by and with.

(P.S...not picking on the "Terrys"....but you guys are generally the organizers of the biggest events around here and therefore have to deal with any potential headaches:cursing:)

Are timing devices used calibrated? If so, how?
Voltmeters? If so, how?
Are hull lengths ever verified? If so, How?
Are other hull dimensions verified? If so, How?

If people going to be held to a certain specified requirement, better be able to accurately verify it.

How something is verified is just as important as the specification.

Careful when opening the can...sometimes the worms get out and create a mess.:scared::scared:


I hear what you're saying (even misspoke when I talked about needing a "calibrated gram scale" to weigh spec motors) but if the limits are set high enough that they can be teched with "average" equipment (verniers in this case) it would be easy to do. In the case of weighing motors you would need a fairly expensive gram scale to tell the difference between a stock and modified wind, impractical and unnecessary as previously mentioned.

Mike and I had this conversation. He said technically we need a calibrated scale to make sure boats were making the 30 lb. limit. My reply was that we have a cheap fish scale and if a boat is so close to the limit we can't tell if it's legal or not the onus is put on the contestant to prove THEY'RE OWN legality.

It would be the same scenario if a fuel guy had a motor that was so close to the limit you could not say for sure using a pair of verniers if it was good or not. The onus would then be on the contestant to prove they're own legality by providing bore gauges, depth mics, even a climate controlled inspection room, lol!

Toy boats remember...:laugh:

[Doby]

[QUOTE=

Toy boats remember...:laugh:[/QUOTE]

And thats the phrase that is all to often forgotten about.:tiphat:

Perhaps the sarcasm didn't come across in my post..:confused1:

Like Doug Shmuck says..Toy boats fellas!

[T.S.Davis]

When we thought that 62 was THE answer a buddy made gauges for me that had a 37mm opening on one end and a 62mm opening on the other out of stainless steel plate. Cake. I know where he lives........ haha

[T.S.Davis]

Oh also, on the "as manufactured" thing.

All of these manufacturers will build based on pennies this way or that way. They don't make decisions based on racing. Not a new concept either. Mabuchi spit out umpteen versions of the old 700 motors that LSH was based on. Right now there are two generations of the PB2000 right now. The newer of them have button head screws holding the end bell on. Smart but a pain in the a$$. Which one is right? With buttons? Without buttons? ......both are right. When you tech them as Terry described.....edge of dark, 40 degrees, in the wind you wont have the manufacturers drawings to verify it has the right wind, can, bearings, rotor, shrink wrap.

Then some of the aftermarket manufacturers today will do a custom wind and just charge accordingly. In same cases even custom cans. So you could have two "as manufactured" motors side by side from same hand building them be totally different.

Even if we were to rely on the protest process we still have to know how the original motor was built.......exactly. "Well.......it looks like a Proboat 2000........which generation?........did those have these bearings?......depends on which lot number." That's just for one manufacturer. Multiply that by every motor on Mikes list then add more as they become available. Ahhhhhhhh.

"As manufactured" would be a tech nightmare. It's part of what was wrong with the original rule set and a large part of why for years I've been saying that we blew it. It worked but only because we were all ignorant.

[Terry Keeley]

So then does it really matter what's in the can as long as it's 37 x 60?

I mean does it really matter?

NAMBA doesn't seem to think so and Mike told me 2-3 mph on an optimized Sport Hydro...

[don ferrette]

So then does it really matter what's in the can as long as it's 37 x 60?

I mean does it really matter?

NAMBA doesn't seem to think so and Mike told me 2-3 mph on an optimized Sport Hydro...

Bottom line is your only going to be able to squeeze a certain amount of power no matter what due to physical limitations of the can size. It's far past time to move past this analysis paralysis and just be done with it at 37mm x 60mm.

[T.S.Davis]

I don't know Terry. I've raced against some I consider very good racers? Some I consider the very best. I've lost to them. I've beat them. I've raced against hand wound motors, custom fabricated Neu motors, almost every RTR motor of the day. I've even modified some motors myself to see what was possible or to address what I thought were flaws. Won some. Lost some. I can't say that I was ever beat by a motor. I've lost to racers. Guys that turn laps, learn their boats, learn to respond to their boat at speed, tweak, tweak, tweak.

Heck, I know a few people. I have access to all those options too. I race motors that I bought off the shelf at the local hobby shop. If you buy a Proboat on line tonight it will come with a better motor than I race with. I simply don't take the best care of them.

So my opinion is that although one motor certainly could/can be better than the next it isn't enough to buy a win so to speak. It's like a .67 nitro motor. You can do what you want to it but it's still a .67 motor. It's only going to give you what it has if it's legal. The guy that knows how to get that little extra from his entire setup, can drive it, maybe got a better night sleep than the next nut...........that guy is going to win.

[ray schrauwen]

Bottom line is your only going to be able to squeeze a certain amount of power no matter what due to physical limitations of the can size. It's far past time to move past this analysis paralysis and just be done with it at 37mm x 60mm.

Please

[ray schrauwen]

I can't help but continue to be amazed at how badly grown men can behave over toy boats. Not you guys here, it's those who seem to like to run and control associations, ignoring the membership, constitutions and so on. Sort of spoils the fun doesn't it?
The class thing is the thing really. Like you guys, we now have 10 gazillion FE classes but can hardly put together anything more than P mono as a class at a regatta. Mostly this was done by one person just so they could set as many records as possible. Something because it exists I have been able to do as well, but whatever for that, I am over our national association and their bs!
Looking at how to grow FE in our club I am thinking through what will work best, be fair for racing, simple and generally affordable.
So far I am at;
P-Q Offshore and Hydro, max 6000 mah.
Open Electric, max 12s 10,000mah.
Pretty much just three classes, hard to be any more simple.

I like it. The rest of the world runs 1P in most electric classes because of the lower expense and many run 6S1P setups because of their efficiency regardless of hull size within reason.

This gazillion HP and crazy MAH classes are just $$ hogs.

I am sitting here looking at what I have and think, wth am I doing?

I'm selling a bunch of boats soon and probably going the above route or close to it.

Kepps... mmmm...:beerchug:

Just dreaming, sorry.

[dethow]

Bottom line is your only going to be able to squeeze a certain amount of power no matter what due to physical limitations of the can size. It's far past time to move past this analysis paralysis and just be done with it at 37mm x 60mm.

Couldn't agree more except I think the situation has left the realm of analysis paralysis :blah: and entered into obstruction :spy: of the desires of membership.

I can hear it now... "Well before we truly know if 37mm x 60mm will work, we need to figure out what the intent of the class is." :frusty:

[Peter A]

I don't know Terry. I've raced against some I consider very good racers? Some I consider the very best. I've lost to them. I've beat them. I've raced against hand wound motors, custom fabricated Neu motors, almost every RTR motor of the day. I've even modified some motors myself to see what was possible or to address what I thought were flaws. Won some. Lost some. I can't say that I was ever beat by a motor. I've lost to racers. Guys that turn laps, learn their boats, learn to respond to their boat at speed, tweak, tweak, tweak.

Heck, I know a few people. I have access to all those options too. I race motors that I bought off the shelf at the local hobby shop. If you buy a Proboat on line tonight it will come with a better motor than I race with. I simply don't take the best care of them.

So my opinion is that although one motor certainly could/can be better than the next it isn't enough to buy a win so to speak. It's like a .67 nitro motor. You can do what you want to it but it's still a .67 motor. It's only going to give you what it has if it's legal. The guy that knows how to get that little extra from his entire setup, can drive it, maybe got a better night sleep than the next nut...........that guy is going to win.

The reality is, and I have both observed and been on each end of it, is that the fastest boat will not necessarily win. Often as not they will stuff in, roll over or break down. The old adage, "if first you want to win, then then first you have to finish".

While I get the basic reason for a 'ltd' or 'spec' class, there are few (and lessening) rtr offerings left for a beginner to get on the water with. So the question could really be :hornets_nest::flashfire:, why even bother if there is no overall agreement in what it should be.
That being said, it just make sense to me that the 37x60 size would be the best compromise, as Don said, "Bottom line is your only going to be able to squeeze a certain amount of power no matter what due to physical limitations of the can size."
This is why we (NZ, I did that!) have a mah limit, Aussie and Naviga have weight limits. The best limitation is the size of the 'fuel tank'. You can only get so much out of it regardless of the motor!

[HTVboats]

Are we at the point that this "horse" has been beaten so badly that no one will move forward with this simple proposal? The consensus appears to have shifted. Do we need a straw poll here of IMPBA members for or against a 37X60 spec class. Notice 37 so we are not copying NAMBA if that helps. You can sort out the number of classes later as this should be a line item issue.
+1 for a spec class
Mic
Please sound off for or against

[dethow]

Notice 37 so we are not copying NAMBA if that helps.

NAMBA motor rule is 37mm Diameter x 60mm Length limits

[T.S.Davis]

Are we at the point that this "horse" has been beaten so badly that no one will move forward with this simple proposal? The consensus appears to have shifted. Do we need a straw poll here of IMPBA members for or against a 37X60 spec class. Notice 37 so we are not copying NAMBA if that helps. You can sort out the number of classes later as this should be a line item issue.
+1 for a spec class
Mic
Please sound off for or against

I already have and have the signatures on it as required. Just haven't sent it to anyone.

[T.S.Davis]

This is why we (NZ, I did that!) have a mah limit,

How do you guys verify that? I'm guessing you have the same problem that NAMBA does with their mah limit. Nobody checks it because nobody has the ability in the field on race day to do that. NAMBA relies on the sticker on the pack. If the sticker is right it's legal. They sometimes check pre-race voltage but the mah limits never get checked. Kind of a farce for them.

[dethow]

Are we at the point that this "horse" has been beaten so badly that no one will move forward with this simple proposal?


I already have and have the signatures on it as required. Just haven't sent it to anyone.


It is my belief that someone needs to just put in a proposal for 37mm x 60mm identical to NAMBA and see what happens. I think at this point it has all been debated so much... and that is the conciseness of what racers want. There is no silver bullet solution that is going to address every question/concern that Mr. Mike Ball may be able to bring up.

Mr. Ball and the rest of the BODs can either choose to approve the proposal and allow it to go forward for membership vote... Or they can resign to the fact that P-Limited/Spec classes can be run at a Nationals Event as a "Special Event" with winners being awarded First, Second, Third Place... No "National Champion". I also don't think that points from those "Special Events" would be able to be counted towards a President's Cup or any other combined points awards.

The sooner a proposal gets on their desk the sooner these discussions end. :beerchug:

And I'll promise you all now... I won't say a negative word :zip-up: if they deny and never let it go to membership vote.
As long as they acknowledge (in the meeting minutes) that will result in P-Limited/Spec classes only being run at "Nationals" events as "Special Events" with winners being awarded First, Second, Third Place... No "National Champion".
-------------------------------------------------------:rules:-------------------------------------------------------

[Doby]

Omfg......

[Terry Keeley]

I don't know Terry. I've raced against some I consider very good racers? Some I consider the very best. I've lost to them. I've beat them. I've raced against hand wound motors, custom fabricated Neu motors, almost every RTR motor of the day. I've even modified some motors myself to see what was possible or to address what I thought were flaws. Won some. Lost some. I can't say that I was ever beat by a motor. I've lost to racers. Guys that turn laps, learn their boats, learn to respond to their boat at speed, tweak, tweak, tweak.

Heck, I know a few people. I have access to all those options too. I race motors that I bought off the shelf at the local hobby shop. If you buy a Proboat on line tonight it will come with a better motor than I race with. I simply don't take the best care of them.

So my opinion is that although one motor certainly could/can be better than the next it isn't enough to buy a win so to speak. It's like a .67 nitro motor. You can do what you want to it but it's still a .67 motor. It's only going to give you what it has if it's legal. The guy that knows how to get that little extra from his entire setup, can drive it, maybe got a better night sleep than the next nut...........that guy is going to win.



Where's the "Like" button? For sure it's the whole package and the motor is only a small part of the equation.

And if the can size is the big limiting factor (kinda like displacement in fuel classes) then adding anything else is like picking fly chit outta pepper with boxing gloves on. Or "analysis paralysis" as Don puts it.

I know your National Fast Electric Director fairly well (Mr. Ball, lol) and I know that he is a meticulous type just as I am. Therefore he wants to get it right.

But a huge part of "getting it right" is also making it practical and simple enough so that the guys in the field can implement the Rule correctly.

On Sunday night, in the rain at 40*...:unsure:

[T.S.Davis]

On Sunday night, in the rain at 40*...:unsure:

You have to be the only guy that happens to Terry. hahaha

[Peter A]

How do you guys verify that? I'm guessing you have the same problem that NAMBA does with their mah limit. Nobody checks it because nobody has the ability in the field on race day to do that. NAMBA relies on the sticker on the pack. If the sticker is right it's legal. They sometimes check pre-race voltage but the mah limits never get checked. Kind of a farce for them.

In reality nobody cares that much, and the rated value on the original manufacturers label is sufficient, and we have max voltages. Stll no one gets that upset if someone uses hv cells if it means making up a race. Few possess the know how to work out how much capacity the battery truely holds, and Fe is too small for it to be such an issue here. Heck even the gas guys can't agree on finding someone to tech a stock 26 zenoah, even with a 'dummies' guide to do so!
It becomes, and should be, about turning laps and finishing races. But above all just enjoying playing toy boats. When it becomes all about the rules and people cheating it to win, everybody starts to lose something!

[T.S.Davis]

I totally get that. The guys that do this stuff wouldn't want anyone even thinking they were cheating. So they just comply and give it little thought. It's that one unscrupulous dude that screws it up for everyone.

Example...

NAMBA and IMPBA didn't always have a max charged voltage. Everyone just assumed that the battery manufacturers recommendations for charge voltage was sufficient to keep guys in check. It's a safety thing right? Why risk it? I sure wouldn't. Well it turned out somebody totally was risking it. Over charging their cells repeatedly. At major events no less. There was/has been speculation that records were set by doing so. Nobody could prove it as it didn't occur to anyone that they needed to check. There was no "rule" prohibiting it exactly so was it cheating? "Oh for crap sake!!!! Sighhhhhhhh". Had to add it in before someone got hurt.

With any rule set, regardless of fuel, a guy that's a cheater............ is a cheater. He's going to find some way to get around the system. Rules are designed to give honest people a recipe for parity with his fellow lunatics. A hand full of said lunatics with similar boats, going similar speeds, with similar childish grins is what the hobby is about IMO.

[Peter A]

Can I have a 'like' button for you Terry? :thumbup:
It gets even worse when your National association president decides to hold allow non members to compete in regattas, not run failsafes (rule for gassers with penalties that he himself brought in!), and then awards himself PC points for competing against all not just members (Obsessed!). Complaints to the committee have now led to the cancelling of this years PC competition because the rules didn't say he couldn't do this and are therefore too ambiguious!
Sad part for me is that I was the one who would have won it this year, my first and maybe only real chance at it! After putting in the effort I was on track to win with the highest points ever and with only FE. It is a bit gutting!
This same 'President' arbitrarily removed my access to our forum, so I cannot exercise my rights to free speech because his mate complained that he didn't like my opinion. The committee upheld said 'complaint', which was in fact nothing but a whinge from someone who was also a previous president who quit and walked away from the association with his entire club! Someone I have had nothing to do with for years. The national treasurer also emailed me saying he was sick of my persistence with electrics, and he and others would be happy if I wasn't in the association.
End of the day I (and others) are over it and will just work on our club and make that the best we can.
Sorry about the rant guys, just felt like getting that off my chest. I know it diverged a little bit off topic.

[T.S.Davis]

Can I have a 'like' button for you Terry?

hahaha For each guy that likes what I type there are 6 (at least) that just get more pissed than when they were reading the last thing I typed. OH! Then there's a guy that logs everything I type like a lawyer. Saves everything so he can use it like sound bites to paint me as some kind of monster at a later date in some fantasy court room. Must be exhausting with well over 20,000 posts out there. There's even a guy that just makes stuff up all together to go after my character. Weeeeeeeee!

It's super fun be'n me at times. Woohoo! Lets send in another proposal! ugh

[Terry Keeley]

Then there's a guy that logs everything I type like a lawyer. Saves everything so he can use it like sound bites to paint me as some kind of monster at a later date in some fantasy court room.

Gotta love those guys. We had one in our club too.

They think Perry Mason's (Millennials can Google him) gonna show up and punish all the "wrongs" they've been dealt by the world. Special little snowflakes they are, that's what Mommy always said, right?

Then the lawyer says you have no case, it's a private club, there's been no laws broken and you haven't suffered any financial loss. But if you give me a $10K retainer I'll see what I can do.

End of discussion...:glare:

[Terry Keeley]

I heard through the grapevine a proposal has been submitted to amend our Rule Book in accordance with Section B “IMPBA Constitution”, Article VIII, Section 1.

Apparently the proposal is to create a P Limited class that is the same as NAMBA's current rule. This would be a great addition to the IMPBA FE Rules from all I've seen and heard over the past few weeks.

I hope your FE Director sees this as well and the Board passes the proposal as written!

[longballlumber]

I heard through the grapevine a proposal has been submitted to amend our Rule Book in accordance with Section B ?IMPBA Constitution?, Article VIII, Section 1.

Apparently the proposal is to create a P Limited class that is the same as NAMBA's current rule. This would be a great addition to the IMPBA FE Rules from all I've seen and heard over the past few weeks.

I hope your FE Director sees this as well and the Board passes the proposal as written!

I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done, why this is being done and the method in which it's being done in. It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)

Another note, the club that submitted the proposal to the IMPBA are currently running a motor limit of 58mm.

This whole P-Limited thing has become MORE, MORE, MORE.... (MORE isn?t necessary to keep the class successful IMO).

MORE connector diameter (melting solder joints)
MORE controller headroom (60/90am now have moved to 120/150amp)
MORE capacity in the batteries (because we are pulling more amps)
MORE motor options
MORE motor length
OOPS too much motor length! Just back off by 2mm

but yet the majority are STILL using (generally) the same 56mm style motor that got us here. Heck even the guys that are kicking and screaming that 60mm needs to be the length limit are routinely and openly suggesting a motor that is only 56mm long to others when they ask.

Why does a bigger hammer need to be the solution. How about we institute some rules that keeps people from harming motors and controllers allowing equipment to last entire seasons or multiple years? From a true Limited, Spec, or Club (whatever you want to call it) class perspective, why is the motor the focal point? I think we can all benefit from taking several steps back, tapping the breaks. Lets take a look at where we started and what it's turned into.

My 2 pennies from the perspective of representing the IMPBA
Ball

[TRUCKPULL]

Mike

Where is the LIKE button?

Larry

[T.S.Davis]

Cured.

[Doug Smock]

I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done, why this is being done and the method in which it's being done in. It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)

Another note, the club that submitted the proposal to the IMPBA are currently running a motor limit of 58mm.

This whole P-Limited thing has become MORE, MORE, MORE.... (MORE isn?t necessary to keep the class successful IMO).

MORE connector diameter (melting solder joints)
MORE controller headroom (60/90am now have moved to 120/150amp)
MORE capacity in the batteries (because we are pulling more amps)
MORE motor options
MORE motor length
OOPS too much motor length! Just back off by 2mm

but yet the majority are STILL using (generally) the same 56mm style motor that got us here. Heck even the guys that are kicking and screaming that 60mm needs to be the length limit are routinely and openly suggesting a motor that is only 56mm long to others when they ask.

Why does a bigger hammer need to be the solution. How about we institute some rules that keeps people from harming motors and controllers allowing equipment to last entire seasons or multiple years? From a true Limited, Spec, or Club (whatever you want to call it) class perspective, why is the motor the focal point? I think we can all benefit from taking several steps back, tapping the breaks. Lets take a look at where we started and what it's turned into.

My 2 pennies from the perspective of representing the IMPBA
Ball

Worth repeating.

Well said sir.

Back to sitting on my hands...:zip-up:

As you were......:tiphat:

[T.S.Davis]

You guys have a rule book right? Have you read it?

[T.S.Davis]

No worries. I'll retract the proposal and IMPBA can put it's head back in the sand for another 10 years.

[TRUCKPULL]

No worries. I'll retract the proposal and IMPBA can put it's head back in the sand for another 10 years.

Terry
What are the advantages of moving to 37mm X 60mm

Was there not custom motors from NEU that fit in the 60mm?

What motors would this allow.


Larru

[T.S.Davis]

You could have a 1412 made to order but you wouldn't win with it. We've raced them.

Honestly it doesn't matter. I'm retracting the proposal.

[Darin Jordan]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... Good Grief.

The new NAMBA rule could be ANYTHING BUT "More"... It's less. Less restrictions, less red-tape, less ambiguity, less confusion, less gray area, less words, less space in the rulebook, less to interpret, less to maintain, less to tech, less for the CD to have to worry about, less having to maintain the rule...

The rule is as BASIC as it gets, and truly LIMITS the class now...

Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to stir up $hit... Or you can't read a set of calipers...

If you can't figure it out, maybe you're in the wrong hobby and should take up knitting...

166598

[Terry Keeley]

I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done, why this is being done and the method in which it's being done in. It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)

Try not to get too down on Terry, his District Director told him to submit it to the President, his DD and the Secretary.

In the end it doesn't matter how it was submitted, the entire Board will decide the outcome. They could vote it in for a one year trial, send it out to the membership to decide, vote it down or table it (top of B5):

https://nebula.wsimg.com/efb2b176fad82f211abb0b8af48eac1a?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

In reality tho they'll look to you for major input as you are their FE representative.

You didn't mention the re-wind and weight issue so it looks like the only "stumbling block" (for you) is the can length?

In your survey there are a couple "TP Power" motors that are 59 mm and "Proboat's" that are 58 mm. Wouldn't a 60 mm limit cater to these as well as any future changes to these and the Aquacraft motors? Isn't that why NAMBA went to 60 mm?

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/IMPBA%20Spec%20Motor%20Chart%202019-09-25%20(1).pdf

Just trying to understand here...

[Darin Jordan]

Due Diligence...

166603

166599166600166601166602

[HTVboats]

Here on our hosts OSE parts store the you have SSS 3660 $55, Leopard 3660 $50, leopard X2 3660 $70, and TP 3659 for $85. Are these motors superior? They surely don't break the bank and are available without knowing the secret hand shake. There seems to be a number of people who support 60mm. I wonder what the vote total was in NAMBA?
Mic

[Darin Jordan]

In your survey there are a couple "TP Power" motors that are 59 mm and "Proboat's" that are 58 mm. Wouldn't a 60 mm limit cater to these as well as any future changes to these and the Aquacraft motors? Isn't that why NAMBA went to 60 mm?


Just trying to understand here...

NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.

[don ferrette]

NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.

I don't think it could be spelled out any better. Thanks Darin for your input and extensive testing, it's a shame that there are some who can't see the forest for the trees............ SMH once again.

[dethow]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... Good Grief.

The new NAMBA rule could be ANYTHING BUT "More"... It's less. Less restrictions, less red-tape, less ambiguity, less confusion, less gray area, less words, less space in the rulebook, less to interpret, less to maintain, less to tech, less for the CD to have to worry about, less having to maintain the rule...

The rule is as BASIC as it gets, and truly LIMITS the class now...

Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to stir up $hit... Or you can't read a set of calipers...

If you can't figure it out, maybe you're in the wrong hobby and should take up knitting...

166598


NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.

Where is that "Like" button we all want?
This is ALL what's worth repeating! Well said sir.:tiphat:
And thanks for chiming in Darin. Nice to hear from the person whom is most likely the smartest in the room on this subject. :brownnoser:

[dethow]

Honestly it doesn't matter. I'm retracting the proposal.

WHY??? :confused1:
Pretty sure that the majority of membership is with you.
Hope there's not a small group of guys in leadership positions putting pressure on you... SMH

[don ferrette]

Due Diligence...

166603

166599166600166601166602Mike Ball have you read this in depth research from Darin??

[dethow]

It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)

So why are you having a temper tantrum?
What... you wanted a chance to convince the submitting club not to do it?



Another note, the club that submitted the proposal to the IMPBA are currently running a motor limit of 58mm.

Based on YOUR influence...
And I believe that was done within the submitting club because 58mm DOES work for RIGHT NOW and that can be easily changed at the club level if ever necessary. But when it come to putting forth a long term rule set that most hope doesn't ever need to be re-visited at the national organization level... 60mm makes more sense.


I think we can all benefit from taking several steps back, tapping the breaks. Lets take a look at where we started and what it's turned into.

Let me guess... Your next question is "What's the intent of the class?" :blah: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MIKE! :frusty:

[T.S.Davis]

Hope there's not a small group of guys in leadership positions putting pressure on you... SMH

No not at all. Just not willing to push the rope anymore. Above my pay grade. IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009.

[dethow]

No not at all. Just not willing to push the rope anymore. Above my pay grade. IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009.

Understood... But based on conversations both verbal and through email, along with what I've seen in the meeting minutes on the Subject... their are two individuals in leadership positions who don't want P-Limited/Spec and have been obstructing every way possible. The rest of IMPBA leadership seems open to the conversation and have even said outright that they'd like to move towards a path to get those classes in the rule book.

So I'm just concerned that all the sudden... now that those two individuals have spoken out against the proposal you just go ahead and withdraw. We've all seen what they said publicly... Were there private emails and/or phone calls that also influenced your decision?

Terry... please go with membership and leave the proposal. Or forward it to someone else in IMPBA willing to force the conversation. Nothing wrong with leadership having a conversation on the matter and let membership see the meeting minutes on the issue so that next election period they can vote out the individuals not allowing the progress membership wants.

You say "IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009."
This shouldn't be 100% up to the leadership or better yet... a couple guys in leadership. It should be up to membership. Yes... start with leadership to help insure a proposal is the best option available for the organization. But leadership should NOT be obstructing and silencing the voices of membership by not allowing any proposal to move forward. That's not promoting the hobby. Plain and simple. This has been the most popular FE classes for the last decade for heavens sake.

And the FE Director is almost alone on the 58mm or less discussion. Most of the people who have been closely involved in these discussions agree with 60mm except for him. The smartest person on the Subject (Darin Jordan) who has done the most research and wrote articles on the subject agrees with 60mm. And those that weren't involved from the beginning (like Terry Keeley) can be easily convinced with simple logic. Sorry Mr. Ball... Your sticking point and line in the sand has no logic behind it. Many see it.. you just refuse to.

And as I've said and continue to practice... If that's the road IMPBA wants to take then no FE racer or club should be involved with them.
I will start racing again when one of 2 things happen. IMPBA stops obstructing P-Limited/Spec or there is a local NAMBA club which I can race with. I just refuse to support or race under an organization who refuses to listen to its membership and promote the hobby.
But people change... and I'll change my point of view if they change theirs.

[T.S.Davis]

Holy crap........Dave and I agreed on something.

I was urged by multiple people to submit in 2017. Did. Tabled. No alternative offered. No year trial of something different. Waited patiently for two years while data was collected. I was urged to submit something that would make to organizations more harmonious. That was last week. Did. Went exactly like I thought it would. Retracted it. I'm being urged to do so again with a little bit clearer verbiage.

I've been elbow deep in every rule update since about 2003. Was NAMBA then. Guess I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it.

[dethow]

Holy crap........Dave and I agreed on something.
Terry, you and I have never been in disagreement on the basic ideas here. We just disagreed on how to get it accomplished. You've gone with patience while I listened to what I was being told by the two individuals in leadership and saw nothing would change unless their butts were put to a flame.
I'm just deeply regretful that things got ugly between you and me.



I've been elbow deep in every rule update since about 2003. Was NAMBA then. Guess I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it.

I can respect and understand that. You should consider forwarding it to someone willing to submit it.

[Doug Smock]

In the interest squashing the IMPBA FE TOY BOAT RACING Deep State conspiracy theories and keeping it real..:olleyes: The BOD is doing it's job. If you don't the JOB we are doing, get off the keyboard, step up, and pull your pants down around your ankles! :laugh: I promise you'll be punished appropriately for your time and effort.:smile:

Later...??.:tiphat:

Proposal #2 ? Sec. J ? FE Spec Class: Proposal was submitted to add an FE Spec class (a variation of NAMBA P-Ltd class) to Sec J. Class for hulls up to 34? length. The limitation to be ?can size? maximum of 37mm x 62mm on an in-runner motor. There is limited power that can be produced from this size can and the submitters feel this will make the grow and give racers choices of new offerings not on the current approved motor list. Chris Harris FE Dir. noted that IMPBA does not have a National rule set for P-Ltd. because it was started as an entry level class to get newer boaters into the hobby for a reasonable amount. It grew in popularity with the experienced boaters and morphed into a more serious racing class, thus changing the original intent. Additionally there is no plan to allow them to run for records due to the issue of ability to tech the motors. Lengthy discussion followed. Points were made that the idea to go to can size may be too over simplistic. Cases of members ordering expensive special winds in those can sizes, then using the argument that they are not modified because they came that way were brought up. That negates the purpose of having a limitation to keep the class competitive for newer boaters. The feeling is that this proposal will turn the P-Limited or Spec class into a big money class which was never the intent. Members agreed that Stock classes and RTR classes should remain simple/less expensive for new boaters. It was noted that D4 uses the approved motor list, but has added a DP motor to the current list in their district. It was noted this same discussion has been going on for 9 years. It was noted that Gas stock classes are the most popular in LSG now. Members would like to see a rule set made, but want it to be a definite stock or RTR class. The discussion of leaving the current P-Ltd (or spec) at the district level followed. D13 still uses the approved motor list and runs this class regularly. It was noted that the issues began when ?any speed controller? became allowed. Pres. Chris noted that NAMBA is currently proposing to change the P-Ltd. class to this very ?can size? rule, and suggest we table this proposal to see what issues shake out this season, then revisit. This class can run at races using District rules. (Sec. NOTE: NAMBA proposal was withdrawn after this meeting due to the teching issue) MOTION by Chris Harris to table this motion. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. No vote. Members felt further discussion was needed. D4 noted that the class is not growing in his district, but members keep them around in event of newer boaters wanting to get started racing a less expensive class. Incoming FE Mike Ball made the point that we need to decide what we want to accomplish and then build a class that satisfies that goal. We won?t help entry level boaters with this proposal if that is true intent. Point was made that even RTR is not easy to define because the hobby companies no longer consider NAMBA and IMPBA rules when deciding on offerings. It was noted that even RTR can be managed at District and club level. Districts make accommodations on rule sets when other districts groups attend their races. Point was made that the ?can size? idea will take the cost to practically a P class cost. Board members felt it may be better to terminate this proposal. Record Director Doug Smock made the point that classes are added more for records purposes. The idea of using motor weight as a limiter (measuring tool) vs. can size was discussed. MOTION by Doug Smock to terminate this proposal. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. None opposed. Proposal terminated. ACTION: Mike Ball will begin collecting data on motors to see if the weight idea is viable for teching. Pres Chris thanked everyone for their time, and especially Chris Harris for his many years of service, and Mike Ball for stepping up to fulfill the term. Chris Harris let the board know that he is still available for teching FE motors.

There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was requested. MOTION by FE Chris Harris to adjourn. SECOND by D1 Luc White. Meeting adjourned 9:40 PM. ET.
Respectfully submitted, Lynne Rupley, Secretary

Call ID: Conference 313111010, Feb 13 2018 6_54_37pm.mp3

[Doug Smock]

Someone said we need to learn from the gas guys. There is a reason they don't have Super Sport Cat, Rigger, Sport Hydro, and O/B Tunnel.

Write a proposal on a FE Super Sport (or whatever) mono, assign it a motor dimension (or whatever) and see how fast that gets the thunbs up and goes out for a one year trial.

[Doug Smock]

Edited for the highly sensitive, sorry fellas.
While your talking about can size... Why not limit all the heat racing classes with can sizes!?!?

More boats will finish, the retrieve boat will go out less, and the races will be closer. What's not to like?

Later...:beerchug:

[Darin Jordan]

Ridiculous and condescending response, but whatever.

I have a better idea. Why not do away with the power structure completely? No limits on anything, just run what you brung?

Good Grief.

[don ferrette]

For the resident experts...

Really Doug?

Hey since you brought up experts.......... did you read Darin Jordan's rather extensive and in depth study/testing of the very motor sizes we are discussing?? Good stuff right there. Since data collection is/has been used as a "talking point" I don't think there's much better than what Darin published last April regardless of which side of this topic one is on.

[Doug Smock]

Really Doug? I wasn't being condescending. There are some experts here right?

it's a shame that there are some who can't see the forest for the trees............ SMH once again.

I'll take "resident experts" for $200 Alex..:wink: TOY BOATS fellas, lighten up.

BTW I wasn't kidding about limits for all heat racing classes. Some are already promoting Q Limited. Is that next? If so there is time to get ahead of it.:thumbup1: Besides folks will need something to discuss this winter since the 10th. annual P Limited discussion started so early. :laugh:

I didn't say a word about P Limited motors Don. And don't intend to. Why? :laugh: Makes zero sense at this point, minds are made up. If anyone was going to change their position I imagine they would have done so by now.
You and I already agreed to disagree, and I'm fine with that, and let's leave it at that. :wink:

D13 is racing 36.5 X 56.5 because that's what THEY want! They have about 10 years of success and have no idea it won't work.

I'm done with the nonsense guys! Like a buddy of mine said. "I got 99 problems, model boating ain't one of them".

See you at the pond!:tiphat:

[dethow]

In the interest squashing the IMPBA FE TOY BOAT RACING Deep State conspiracy theories and keeping it real..:olleyes: The BOD is doing it's job.

The meeting minutes you copied in are from February of 2018 which was 1 year and 8 months ago. Sorry, but you can't copy in minutes from almost 2 years ago and claim the BODs are doing it's job. What is currently being done?

And let's look at a few things from those minutes.

"Pres. Chris noted that NAMBA is currently proposing to change the P-Ltd. class to this very "can size" rule, and suggest we table this proposal to see what issues shake out this season, then revisit."
NAMBA has collected data, completed testing, and took in a new proposal with necessary changes made. And membership has already voted and the new rule is in the book. That's a lot of work completed in 1 year, 6 months. Job well done NAMBA. And we now know how that shook out? What's IMPBA doing?

"MOTION by Chris Harris to table this motion. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. No vote. Members felt further discussion was needed"
Chris wanted to table the issue, NOT terminate. I wonder which members wanted further discussion? Maybe the one that ended up motioning to terminate the proposal all together?

"MOTION by Doug Smock to terminate this proposal. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. None opposed. Proposal terminated."
Ummm...

"Mike Ball will begin collecting data on motors to see if the weight idea is viable for teching."
Been done and determined that the weight idea can not be tech'd and most agree a simple 60mm length limit works.

Doug you are 100% right that's it's "TOY BOAT RACING".
So why all the concern over letting the most popular FE classes for those Toy Boats into the rule book?
Seems that You and Mr. Ball are the only ones acting like the sky would fall if that happened. It's TOY BOAT RACING.

You say "I got 99 problems, model boating ain't one of them".
Well you sure do have a lot of problems whenever a proposal for P-Limited/Spec gets closer to being in the rule books.
Please do... be "done with the nonsense" and stop obstructing.

[Doug Smock]

The meeting minutes you copied in are from February of 2018 which was 1 year and 8 months ago. Sorry, but you can't copy in minutes from almost 2 years ago and claim the BODs are doing it's job. What is currently being done?


Uh yes I can. And I did. That's when the ''Spec" proposal went before the board. And believe me when I tell you, I have no problem with the motion to terminate that proposal. NONE.:wink:

BTW I am absolutely certain that the BOD has a much better idea of what the membership wants, and more importantly what's best for the organization than you do.

I will ignore any further :blah: by you on this subject. Know that.

Have a world class evening.

[dethow]

BTW I am absolutely certain that the BOD has a much better idea of what the membership wants, and more importantly what's best for the organization than you do.

And there it is people... one of your IMPBA leadership/BOD members speaking for the entire leadership/BOD.

Doug... it's not about knowing more then "I" do. That's not a difficult task.
It's about you and maybe the rest of the BODs (if you truly reflect their beliefs), thinking your small group are the only ones who know anything and you're the only voices who matter.

Hate to start up any name calling again... your statements really make it hard. SMFH...But I will not do that.

I have no intention of furthering a discussion with you on this matter Doug. You are a waste of time.
I think people might finally be seeing your true colors.

This is the reason I will not be part of IMPBA and continue to suggest FE Clubs should be with NAMBA. The organization that actually wants to promote FE Racing.

Meanwhile, like Terry Davis "I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it."

[don ferrette]

Gang, let's take it down a notch............

Perhaps the simplest approach might be for the IMPBA BOD to vote to send this proposal directly to membership vote, let the members decide what's best. That is one of 4 options the BOD has in dealing with proposals and regardless of what some may think the BOD does in general a damn good job in handling proposals and determining the most important Q- will it benefit the organization as a whole. I spent over a decade serving the membership on the BOD and am still doing so but now in a non voting role (national hydro director) and will say this- we all too often get remembered for that one issue some don't agree with rather than all the good that gets done...............

[Terry Keeley]

If I was on the Board now hearing conflicting information from the very people that run FE I'd do exactly that. Let the membership decide. It doesn't get more grass roots or democratic than that.

From pg. B-3: https://nebula.wsimg.com/efb2b176fad82f211abb0b8af48eac1a?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

c) Option #3 - All rule proposals not supported and not terminated under option #2 by the
Board, will be distributed to IMPBA membership in December for vote by a ballot that will
require a head count for or against the proposal. The membership vote will determine the
implementation of said proposal and, if passed, will be effective as of the beginning of the
next racing season. Results will also be published in the next Roostertail newsletter.

BTW, I had NO IDEA you guys were so passionate about this subject, had I have known I would never have brought it up. But now that I have maybe something good will come of it for model boating.

From what I see as an outsider the NAMBA rule is a good one, they have done their homework and have adopted a simple, easy to tech rule for their membership. I hope IMPBA will follow suit otherwise they will surely lose members...

[Darin Jordan]

You are wasting your time, FE'ers. It's abundantly clear where the IMPBA leadership stands. This will never be in the hands of the members, and your leadership has taken their stand. Doesn't fit their paradigm.

Their choice is clear. Next moves are up to you. I'm assuming you can all reason out as to WHO pays the bills??

[Doug Smock]

Hey guys. First off I don't want to start a $hit storm here but.....




BTW, I had NO IDEA you guys were so passionate about this subject, had I have known I would never have brought it up

:laugh: No you didn't just type that!:blink: Better check your sent messages from the 22nd.:laugh:

SMDH

[jaike5]

This is hurting my head …… again. Just can't wait for the Q discussions on motor ,esc, and Batteries.
Jay.

[Terry Keeley]

:laugh: No you didn't just type that!:blink: Better check your sent messages from the 22nd.:laugh:

SMDH

Ya, I knew it was a "hot topic" but I had no idea it was THAT hot and there was so much history and such opposing views on the subject.

Again, it seems this thread is doing some good, to re-cap:



It seems the majority want National P Limited rules in the IMPBA.

It sounds like the the issue of re-winds and weight is pretty inconsequential and difficult to tech.

It seems like can size is the major limiting factor to KV output and cost.

It looks like the majority of the low cost motors would have a 37 x 58-59 mm or smaller can.

It seems NAMBA has done their homework and adopted a 37 x 60 mm rule for simplicity and to allow for any current and future can size deviations.



So am I right here that the current debate is about 1 mm in can length? :blink:

[longballlumber]

Mike Ball have you read this in depth research from Darin??

Don Ferrette - I find it funny you're asking me if I read the PropWash article. I have read the PropWash article and lived in this world for awhile now. Quite frankly, I have been elbows deep in this steaming pile of volcano crap since it started. The question is; have YOU read the article? Questioning me and my comprehension level without imparting us with YOUR wisdom seems a little one sided.

I suspect you and I have digested the data very similarly. If we didn't, you wouldn't' have been looking under rocks for the 1500kv ProBoat on FaceBook awhile back for your district 1/10 scale class. Mind you this motor has been out of production for several years. Oh and by the way, it' only 56mm long. If you were so hell bent on 60mm being a solution why would you be looking for a motor that has been out of production for multiple years? Just go buy one of those 60mm motors that is readily available on OSE?

Data is what the data is and the data doesn't lie. However, how the data is interpeptide and used to establish rules is something different. Simply having more motor options isn't the entire solution. We need to have motor options AND we need to have a narrow range of performance swing.

Here is what I take away from the data

*Our baseline motors (Aquacraft and Proboat/Dynamite all 56mm long) were much higher performing that we gave them credit for. On the water testing still supports this today.
*Pretty much all of motors tested (regardless of length) were inferior to the baseline. MORE (speaking of length) isn't better! Some will say this contradicts my argument.
*I don't know about others, but there is NO WAY I, in good conscious, would recommend any motor other than a current ProBoat (2000kv), one of the AquaCraft motors (2030 or 1800), or maybe the SSS (I haven't seen many of these run). Nothing even comes close to the performance of these motors. We are talking about new boaters here. Seasoned racers, already know what motors to buy. THAT?S WHY THEY KEEP BUYING THE 56mm MOTORS!
*I keep getting the $50-$60 Leopard example thrown at me? Anyone that would recommend that motor should be force to race with it as well. Darin?s data and others who have commented clearly state that motor just isn't comparable (performance wise).
*Why wouldn't a rule be written to set potential new comers up for success AND PERFORMANCE?
*What the data doesn't tell us - How well will an "optimized" 60mm motor will perform when compared to the baseline. This is regardless if it's a Frankensteined homemade/wound motor or a special order, purpose built from a reputable manufacturer. Why do we need to wait and find out when we have perfectly good 56mm motors that have been used for the last how many years? MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER.


Proboat UL-19 has a 56mm motor - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=hh-prb08028

Proboat Veles has a 56mm motor - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=hh-prb08029

ProMarine RC - sells boats with a 56mm (2030KV) option ? (can?t seem to get the website to work)

I am sure there is some NEW old stock of the Revolt, Lucas, Motley Crew, and UL-1 floating around

AquaCraft 1800 is STILL in stock - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=hh-aqug7002

AquaCraft 2030 is STILL in stock - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=hh-aqug7001

SSS 2030 is available (same as ProMarineRC) - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=tfl-3656

ProBoat/Dynamite 2000kv is available - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=hh-dynm3831

Later,
Ball

[Darin Jordan]

Here is what I take away from the data

? Our baseline motors (Aquacraft and Proboat/Dynamite all 56mm long) were much higher performing that we gave them credit for. On the water testing still supports this today.
? Pretty much all of motors tested (regardless of length) were inferior to the baseline. MORE (speaking of length) isn?t better! Some will say this contradicts my argument.


What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.

And, you can NOT TECH THE CURRENT RULES! Good Grief, how many times do we have to go through this?

Do what you will. Due Diligence, including YEARS of actual race testing (PSFEMCB has been running this formula for over 3 years now) prove this system works.

Those opposed to this are simply wrong. I'm right, and the data supports my position on this. Do what you will. I could give a rats a$$ at this point.

[dethow]

SMH...
Mike, you've given two motor options for the future. The ProBoat/Dynamite 2000kv and the SSS/Promarine 2030.
It is well known that the AQs MAY not be available much longer.
And the only reason all of the motors you mention currently have advantage is because they are 6-pole compared to 4-pole.

And let's just consider that 3 years from now the AQs are gone and then ProBoat/Dynamite and/or SSS comes out with a slightly larger (58-59mm) 6-pole motor that slightly out preforms the current sized 56mm motor. SO WHAT!?
Or maybe Leopard or another comes out with a 4-pole at 60mm that has more copper inside and can actually compete with the 56mm 6-poles. SO WHAT!?

People can go get that new motor(s) and maybe (at best) pick up 2-3 mph in their boats and now the classes will have truly hit their limit.
The motors will still cost less than $100 and there will be RTR boats that come with those new motors.

And if a specific club has immediate concerns that they don't want their guys to have to spend the $$$ buying a new motor in order to compete... they can (at the club level) outlaw a single motor choice until they as a club are ready to proceed.

If we go with your thought... if that new motor is ever made we have to tell guys to pull that new motor and go spend $100 for a smaller motor. Heck, we'd have that situation right now. A new guy could go buy a Pursuit or Popeye right off OSE and the RTR motor it comes with wouldn't fit within your limit. We all know those boats won't dominate with that stock SSS 4-pole motor but it'd get him/her on the water and be able to compete with the right prop and setup. And then they can choose to make a change later if they want.

The idea is to set a limit which we don't want to exceed while at the same time provide enough options for both now and the future.
Your idea sets a limit to never exceed what we have right now which in turn provides no solution to one of the main reasons this discussion and process started. Choice of motor options is becoming slim and looks to get worse.

But as Darin says... "Do what you will."
I'm just sick of dealing with someone who thinks he is the smartest person in the room when his thought process completely ignores one of the two main reasons why NAMBA changed their rule set.
1.) Provide more motor options. 2.) Be more techable.
And those two things were fully accomplished while still setting a limit on the classes which keeps speeds and costs down for beginners.

What aren't you understanding??? :frusty:

[longballlumber]

What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.

This isn't/wasn't missed at all.... I am fully aware the higher performing motors are 6 POLE motors. I am also aware the motors tested outside of the baseline were 4 POLE motors. Just to put a cherry on top of my perceived ignorance - I am also aware the Lehner motors are 2 POLE motors.

So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)

[T.S.Davis]

I don't get it. The opposition to it that is. FE experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. IMPBA said absolutely NOT since inception. Paraphrasing. IMPBA members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the IMPBA representation believe their job is to protect the organization from FE? They're supposed to represent the members. ONLY!!!

Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, FE, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it.

This is the second time I've heard the size limits for all classes. From two guys......anywhere. Ever. In fairness, the one guy was just bitching.

[Darin Jordan]

So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)

My testing data showed that there are equivalent 36x60mm motors that will perform on par with the currently, available for now, P-LTD motors.

Additionally, someone who actually understands what they are doing could take a Lehner 2-Pole, a TP 4-Pole, or a Dynamite 6-Pole, and tailor their setup to get equivalent performance out of any of them.

I'm done with this conversation. You guys do what you want. Clearly there are those who just don't want to deal with logic and reason and data and real-world testing. It's not worth the hassle or the time to argue about this. IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing.

Screw this P-LTD idea. It's clearly been a failure over the past 10-years... :olleyes:

[dethow]

Wait... wait... wait...

Is there an easy way to tell if a motor is 2, 4 or 6 pole without taking it apart?

Could you set a 57mm length limit on 6-pole motors and a 60mm limit on 2 and 4-pole motors?

Maybe... just maybe... we have a happy medium here. As long as that can be tech'd.
Probably can't be done easily thou... Right?

Some images for any following along... that don't know what the difference is between 2, 4 and 6-pole motors

[dethow]

i don't get it. The opposition to it that is. Fe experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. Impba said absolutely not since inception. Paraphrasing. Impba members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the impba representation believe their job is to protect the organization from fe? They're supposed to represent the members. Only!!!

Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, fe, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it.

Like

[Doug Smock]

It seems the majority want National P Limited rules in the IMPBA.


Where did you find the majority?
I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread.:wink: Noisy doesn't = majority.

I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

Later :tiphat:

[dethow]

When I got into this hobby (about 5 years ago), I was quickly able to figure out that IMPBA was more about gas/nitro and at a minimum NAMBA was more about FE then IMPBA was. I was able to see that from what clubs around me were running and from a quick look at the rule books.

A few years later (about 2.5 years ago) the NAMBA club I joined made a democratic choice to go from NAMBA to IMPBA with some of the rational being that IMPBA was supposedly looking to develop some new focus on FE. And (at that time) was more open to developing P-Limited/Spec classes which would better fit the dimensional rules our club members liked.

Then about 1.5 years ago it was made obvious to me that IMPBA leadership had no intention on ever allowing Limited/Spec classes into the rule book. I was told as much by two members of leadership and those point of views and efforts continue to this day.

During that same time period I saw ethical and rules violations taking place that I didn't agree with. I decided to not race under the IMPBA moniker and thus left that local club and nothing has changed with the IMPBA since. And I've been told by a member of leadership that the same violations would be done again if that meant not having to allow Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.

As Darin says "IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing."
I personally don't see how any club that only races FE could be involved with IMPBA. The organization just doesn't come close to competing with the commitment made by NAMBA to promote FE racing. And this can be proven by the FACT that NAMBA can have National Championship Race Events which include the most popular FE classes (P-Limited) for National Champion Awards without violating its own rule book.

And then factor in a club which has hosted several National Championship Events and would most likely do more in the future... I see no way that club should be involved with IMPBA.

And now Doug says "In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that."
IMPBA does not come close to competing with NAMBA in terms of the amount of FE membership or clubs. If you want to compete with NAMBA and show FE Racers/Clubs that IMPBA is doing what it can to promote the FE hobby... then YES, you need a National class rule for that.

And Doug, where did you find the majority that DON'T want it? You're fairly certain????
Again, making it sound like your opinions are the only ones that matter. I believe there's a term for that... :censored:

[Terry Keeley]

Where did you find the majority?
I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread.:wink: Noisy doesn't = majority.

I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

Later :tiphat:


I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

[T.S.Davis]

I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread.

We'll never know what the majority thinks. You guys have made that perfectly clear. You've decided for the organization and NEVER let the membership decide.

At the first IMPBA Nats in a decade, the most popular classes were limited/spec. At almost every major event with FE for the passed 10 years the most populated FE classes were "limited". Might be exceptions but they are rare. Before there was a "limited" the most popular FE classes were Limited Sport Hydro and Limited Sport Offshore. Pre-brushless motors. Those date back to about 2003. IMPBA missed those boats too. For close to 16 years the most popular classes were some kind of limited. This would be "data". In fairness however......... "data" still isn't an indication of what the membership wants. Only the membership itself can decide what the "majority" wants or thinks. We simply don't know. We never get that far.

The numbers don't lie either. NAMBA members outnumber IMPBA by a lot. Result of FE? Highly (very highly) unlikely but they can field heats at a nationals. We can't. Apparently or we would have had another. So the fact is that IMPBA actually isn't putting butts on the stand. Not FE butts at least.

If by "crossover" you mean NAMBA guys crossing to play IMPBA I'm confident they would be in favor of having the same rule in both organizations.

[Darin Jordan]

I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

"Noisy" is a complete insult to those who have information and experience to add to these conversations. To accuse me of just being "Noisy"... well... clearly isn't "respectful"...

It shows that the "Leadership" of this organization is covering their ears and saying "Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah"...

Again, complete B.S. I've put YEARS of time, energy, and money into DUE DILIGENCE on this topic, racing, researching, buying motors, testing, etc., and have been provided EVERYTHING to the public. Our club has well over 3-seasons of racing under these rules as well... 30+ Members, EVERY class being P-LTD... that's a LOT of experience and data.

My contributions are way more than just "Noise", UNLESS you simply don't CARE about the facts and have NO INTENTION of listening to the members. "P-LTD will never happen in IMPBA"... Yup, you've said it before and NOTHING will change your mind.

When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.

[dethow]

I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

Kind of like a political poll. A small sample of the electorate to determine a trend.

And last time I'm aware this subject came up on Facebook/Elite RC Boats... Majority there also thought IMPBA should have a Limited/Spec rule set similar to NAMBA.

I feel it'd be hard to find more than a hand full of people (who actually race FE) who'd agree that IMPBA should not have Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.
There maybe some debate as to what those rules should be... but the outright exclusion of the classes would not be popular.

And that Terry is why it will not get to membership. Because they know that and they want their opinions on the subject to be the only ones that matter.
Still thinking there's a term for that... :censored:


When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.
Sure... that would be an acceptable answer.

[JJM591]

Just read the entire thread. This has been said by many, just put it up to vote by members. I know most of us will respect what the majority of membership wants, why won't the IMPBA leadership?

Bottom line the IMPBA exists for the members not the other way around.

Just like in the real world, if your not happy with the current leadership, VOTE THEM OUT.

The P limited classes are the bread and butter of most local clubs and should be represented nationally. The fact that they are not is absurd.

I do enjoy reading everyones responses as most other forums are dead. So put it up for members to vote, it is no skin off any of the leaderships noses if it does or does not pass.

[Doug Smock]

Someone said we need to learn from the gas guys. There is a reason they don't have Super Sport Cat, Rigger, Sport Hydro, and O/B Tunnel.

Write a proposal on a FE Super Sport (or whatever) mono, assign it a motor dimension (or whatever) and see how fast that gets the thumbs up and goes out for a one year trial.

No? All or nothing?



While your talking about can size... Why not limit all the heat racing classes with can sizes!?!?

More boats will finish, the retrieve boat will go out less, and the races will be closer. What's not to like?



Can a can size be a replacement for displacement? No? Ridiculous? You sure?



Some are already promoting Q Limited. Is that next?


Is it?

[dethow]

That is Doug trying to muddy up the discussion with bs.

[don ferrette]

Don Ferrette - I find it funny you're asking me if I read the PropWash article. I have read the PropWash article and lived in this world for awhile now. Quite frankly, I have been elbows deep in this steaming pile of volcano crap since it started. The question is; have YOU read the article? Questioning me and my comprehension level without imparting us with YOUR wisdom seems a little one sided.

I suspect you and I have digested the data very similarly. If we didn't, you wouldn't' have been looking under rocks for the 1500kv ProBoat on FaceBook awhile back for your district 1/10 scale class. Mind you this motor has been out of production for several years. Oh and by the way, it' only 56mm long. If you were so hell bent on 60mm being a solution why would you be looking for a motor that has been out of production for multiple years? Just go buy one of those 60mm motors that is readily available on OSE?
<SNIP>

It actually was just a yes or no question but since you got all wound up over it here we go........

You may have "read" Darin's research but seem to be choosing to not consider it whatsoever, determined to push what you want (quote- I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done). Darin has repeatedly stated FACTS from his research and most likely the most experienced on here with P limited classes but let's just ignore that as well. And lastly we actually have an opportunity here to have a small piece of common ground with NAMBA (since they've already made the change and it's working) but nobody wants that? Nobody crosses over right?

As for looking for the out of production Proboat/Dynamite motor yup sure was (and found a couple) because I was given a 100% race proven combo right down to what prop to run from a well known 1/10th scale guy so I could have a rock solid baseline to test the other motors I have sitting here without risking burning stuff up getting the initial set up right on the boat (I no longer have the disposable income I once had).

I do find it funny how your and again I quote- "MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER" gets applied here on P limited but just a very short while back when a proposal got submitted to limit FE 1/8th scale cans to 40mm diameter, which would have eliminated to big 56mm Plett 370, you were against that and carried on and on until the proposal got stalled (at least we got a couple 40mm motors added to the motor list for "testing" one of which I will be trying in the new FE scale being built). With battery technology where it is now the big power that can be pulled from that Plett makes it unfair against the 40mm NEUs and Lehners and is the equivalent of allowing a 90 run with the 67s in the nitro scale class. But that is yet another unsettled and stalled proposal for another day.

It has become apparent that like Darin and Terry said, nothing is going to change, at least not for the next 15 months.

Done with this thread, no more wasting keys strokes on deaf ears and watching solid input from vastly experienced P limited racers get ignored and/or belittled. Gonna focus on D12 for now and the 37mm x 60mm limit we already adopted as a district but rest assured this is FAR from over.......

[Doug Smock]

1/8 Scale.. My apologies for the short derail, or should you Don ? :confused2:
Not speaking for Mr. Ball as he is quite capable of holding his own but.. As you know Mike went to work as he said he would and IIRC in a very short period of time published this.https://nebula.wsimg.com/f7b28fb053dfc3441af4634768aea1c8?AccessKeyId=ACA73 81D2BFC72351748&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 Last we spoke he got nothing back from the membership.
It has been in the Roostertail since then (July 2018?) and can be found in the rules tab on the site.. What more would you have him do? Test the motors in a Scale that he doesn't own? Squash the Plett with no alternative?

The man is doing his job.:wink: Please send him the results of your testing.

Thanks in advance for your patience fellas! I appreciate it. :tiphat:

[dethow]

Is there an easy way to tell if a motor is 2, 4 or 6 pole without taking it apart?

Could you set a 57mm length limit on 6-pole motors and a 60mm limit on 2 and 4-pole motors?

Maybe... just maybe... we have a happy medium here. As long as that can be tech'd.
Probably can't be done easily thou... Right?

Didn't get any feedback on this.
Is there anything here? Or just impossible to do without pulling a motor apart?

Is there any kind of motor testing device that can be plugged in between the esc and motor and be able to tell how many pole it is?
I have a motor tester which runs off a 2S battery and you have to input the motor's number of poles in order to get accurate KV/RPM numbers. Could something like that be used/manipulated to figure out how many poles a motor has?

Does this make any sense to motor/electronics people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii-5U-ejGTs

[T.S.Davis]

No? All or nothin

Wellll.....you've already explained that the people suggesting and writing the proposals don't represent the majority. Responding to the majority is what you want.....we aint it. Were running it and have for eons but the we aren't a majority. We're just noisy.....er. Apparently.
The numbers are facts not speculation. I've been to a race or two. I've never ever heard someone say " ya know what we're racing?......super sport electric mono". A class that nobody has ever discussed, never run, never even seen has a better chance of sailing through than a proven concept? We truly are lost.

[T.S.Davis]

Dave, maybe but it takes away the idiot level tech. For me, I'd hate to have to fiddle with figuring out the poles. Then a different set of dims for each pole count.

[dethow]

Dave, maybe but it takes away the idiot level tech. For me, I'd hate to have to fiddle with figuring out the poles. Then a different set of dims for each pole count.

I hear you... But if there is a way to do it then someone could provide a list of best equipment to do it with and step by step directions on how.
And remember this probably wouldn't be needed for local club racing but would need to be available at National Events and Record Events. Again probably only for protests and for confirmation in terms of records.

Now... what I think this would fix is what I perceive to be one of Mr. Ball's issues.
I think he's kinda saying that what we have right now is enough and that's 56mm long 6-pole motors which provide the best performance (currently). He seems to be agreeing that current 60mm long 4-pole motors can't out perform those 56mm 6-pole motors. But I think he may see that if more copper was stuffed into that 60mm 4-pole motor it would become more similar in terms of performance with the 56mm 6-pole motors.

So given all that... I think the real threat comes in when we consider what happens if a 60mm 6-pole motor that's stuffed with copper is made. It will out perform anything we currently have and may send these limited classes over the edge of what we desire in terms of speed.

My proposed solution to that would be to limit 6-pole motors to 57mm length and limit 2 and 4-pole motors to 60mm length. I believe this would provide the most parity in terms of available performance from a wide range of motors of 2, 4 or 6 poles. This would limit speeds to what we're currently at, while providing more choices and keeping a performance parity among the choices.

I have goose bumps that I may be on to something...
Not as simple as basic dimensions to tech, but easier then pulling a motor out of a boat to weigh it. And then start factoring in with or without connectors and/or collet.
This pole number test could be done with the motor still in the boat. All you'd have to do is remove the flex shaft, disconnect from esc and plug testing devices into the motor. It'd still be a black and white test. If it tests as a 2 or 4 pole motor then it's max length is 60mm. If it tests as a 6-pole motor then it's max length is 57mm.

Discuss among yourselves...

[HTVboats]

Just keep it simple 60mm. Anything else will confuse everyone and as Terry K pointed out we are down to 1-2mm. Remember the Speed Control battles? Took 9 years to go away so when my grandson turns 21 he may see 60mm in IMPBA.
As for motors please make me use my $50 Leopard. When we went to Huntsville last fall for NAMBA records we set up a P/lmt Cat. I tested the legal Promarine 6 poles and used an old AQ 2030 I got from Mike Z years ago I saved for such occasions. We lowered the record but I will tell you my crappy Leopard was 2-3mph faster and would have cut a second over the AQ. I tested 4 then legal NAMBA list motors and none were superior. I also have run several motors using a Castle data logger and don't see much difference in amps or RPM with 4-6 pole motors. The stop watch determines what we actually race. I have AQ, Promarine, TP, Castle 1412 SSS and Leopards in my box and the cheapest motors are in my personal boats.
Mic

[HTVboats]

What I am going to type here has little to do with P/limited so don't read any further if P/limited is your focus.

Since Doug S. has brought up Q/limited twice I have to clarify as he seems to think we need to fear some radical changes in the works. The FE racers in Florida have 5 classes in our regular NAMBA D-3 point schedule. P/lmtd cat and mono has 75% of the turnout. Full P & Q run combined Cat and Mono's to make the numbers for a class. We also are promoting 2 FE only specialty races in addition. Without P/lmtd there would not be FE events period.
So some of us who race decided to try a Q/lmtd format locally at our specialty events and see where it goes. We decided to make it simple 40X74 single motor, 4-6S and no length limit. The primary rational was COST,AMPS and ESC's. On 6s with a limited can size you can use inexpensive equipment. Many potential boats are collecting dust on shelves. In testing with a 40X74 Leopard I see 120-140 amps max. (40X82mm 150-200+ amps) So a T-180 should be more than reliable and not scare away anyone. We allow 4S to give some mild Full P's a place. Remember Full P or Q you are going to face guys with 40X100+mm motors and speedys in the $400-600 range. Also twins are showing up both P and Q legal in NAMBA. Needless to say people are not flocking to build them. Q/lmtd gives P/lmtd racers a place to move up without breaking the bank. Larger boats will also stay upright in rougher water.
The limited power also give some of the popular RTR's, Sonicwake, Spartans,Pursuit and Genesis (No length restriction) a place with minimal cost. How many of those are in your area and could compete as a limited?
Is can size the answer? Well it seems to be working so give us some time to try this LOCAL CLASS and we will take the lumps. So don't say run what you want locally then use it as a scare tactic in a national rule discussion.
Mic

[dethow]

Mic,
Sounds like a good thought process to "get more boats on the water and more butts in the stand."
I would put a mild cost TFL Ariane in that race.
Good job NAMBA D-3
:thumbup:

[Steven Vaccaro]

Can someone tell me why all the IMPBA clubs are running "limited" style classes, but dont want to approve a limited class? Doesn't it make sense to run a standardized format across the organization?

[T.S.Davis]

A little history....

Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

Should go back in Monday.

[dethow]

Can someone tell me why all the IMPBA clubs are running "limited" style classes, but dont want to approve a limited class? Doesn't it make sense to run a standardized format across the organization?

Well about 1.5 years ago there were a couple members of IMPBA leadership who stated limited/spec classes cause drama/controversy that the BODs felt it'd be in the best interest of the organization to stay clear of and therefore they just wanted to let the rules for those classes be decided at the club level.

That is a somewhat responsible take on what had been going on regarding rules discussions for NAMBA P-Limited classes. However... I'm not keeping score but I think IMPBA is seeing a lot more drama/controversy by not allowing some version of those classes in the rule book. Haven't seen any drama in the NAMBA discussions in about a year at least. Why? Because their leadership allowed their membership to bring resolution to the issue.

Additional drama/controversy will ensue for IMPBA if they ever again allow the classes which THEY don't want in the rule book to run for IMPBA National Champion Awards. Not allowed per the rule book.

So to review. They don't want the drama... which has caused them more drama, currently causes them more drama and will cause them additional drama in the future. And they will never be able to get as many FE racers or support FE Nationals Events (legally) like NAMBA can.

But trust in the BODs... everything would be great if it wasn't for those pesky/noisy members.

[dethow]

A little history....

Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

Should go back in Monday.

That was a great post... THANK YOU TERRY :beerchug:

Someone should copy this into International Waters, Facebook - Elite RC Boats and any other forums which could help spread the word to IMPBA membership and encourage them to let their voice be heard. Steve, you should pin Terry's post to get as many eyes on it as possible.

And with that... I'd suggest this thread just be closed so the drama and debate can end while we sit back and see what happens.:popcorn2:

[Terry Keeley]

A little history....

Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

Should go back in Monday.



There ya go, something constructive WILL come out of this conversation.

I don't blame you for being totally frustrated and pulling your original proposal, I'm worn out by it and I'm only ankles deep! It's growing pains I think, technology is changing so fast for you guys it's tough for the rules to keep up. Then when you have so many people involved it's like herding cats. We both know about that!

I think you'll get somewhere this time, it sounds like the BOD have more info on the subject and are ready to make something happen.

At the VERY LEAST I think they should send it out to the membership for a vote, that will be the true gauge of the popularity of such a rule. :smile:

[Steven Vaccaro]

I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

Should go back in Monday.

Thanks Terry! I think this is a step in the right direction. And addresses Terry Keeley's question.

I hope the future sees the parity that lots of people are looking for.

[longballlumber]

Can someone tell me why all the IMPBA clubs are running "limited" style classes, but dont want to approve a limited class? Doesn't it make sense to run a standardized format across the organization?



The P-limited class is doing nothing but trying to back-door the management of available power. Defining a motor list or a motor length limit gives us a false positive that we can limit the available power evenly across the board. IMO the answer to nearly all of our problems is some type of current limiter (or watt limiter). That is easier said than done, but think about it?. If we had a device that would open the power circuit if the device sees over 95amps for 10sec or more (arbitrary values). Just think about how much money people would have saved on motors and controllers over the last few years!

Motor length becomes LESS of an issue
Stock RTR controller vs. Castle 240amp becomes LESS of an issue (remember that argument)
Re-wound motors becomes LESS of an issue
Spec-ing a prop diameter limit becomes LESS of an issue
6 pole, 4 pole, or 2 pole becomes LESS of an issue
Motor KV limitations vs. no limitations would be LESS of an issue
Motor cost becomes less of an issue $60 Leopard vs. $200+ super-duper NEU or Lehner

REGARDLESS of what we do there will ALWAYS be someone looking to play in the gray area and/or blatantly cross the perceived line. It?s indicative to all styles and forms of Stock, Limited, Spec, Club?. whatever racing.

[Steven Vaccaro]

IMO the answer to nearly all of our problems is some type of current limiter (or watt limiter).

Mike, Is this available?

[Terry Keeley]

The P-limited class is doing nothing but trying to back-door the management of available power. Defining a motor list or a motor length limit gives us a false positive that we can limit the available power evenly across the board. IMO the answer to nearly all of our problems is some type of current limiter (or watt limiter). That is easier said than done, but think about it?. If we had a device that would open the power circuit if the device sees over 95amps for 10sec or more (arbitrary values). Just think about how much money people would have saved on motors and controllers over the last few years!

Motor length becomes LESS of an issue
Stock RTR controller vs. Castle 240amp becomes LESS of an issue (remember that argument)
Re-wound motors becomes LESS of an issue
Spec-ing a prop diameter limit becomes LESS of an issue
6 pole, 4 pole, or 2 pole becomes LESS of an issue
Motor KV limitations vs. no limitations would be LESS of an issue
Motor cost becomes less of an issue $60 Leopard vs. $200+ super-duper NEU or Lehner

REGARDLESS of what we do there will ALWAYS be someone looking to play in the gray area and/or blatantly cross the perceived line. It?s indicative to all styles and forms of Stock, Limited, Spec, Club?. whatever racing.


There ya go, something better for the future.

But for now there's a proposal on the table for a simple, easy to tech solution that will cross over to both organizations and provide the majority of IMPBA members with a National Rule set.

Will there "be someone looking to play in the gray area and/or blatantly cross the perceived line"? Sure there will. Will they create enough of an advantage to be way ahead of the pack? Probably not from what you've told me.

I hope when this "crosses your desk" you'll have a good hard look at the BIG PICTURE and advise the BOD and vote accordingly. :smile:

[dethow]

IMO the answer to nearly all of our problems is some type of current limiter (or watt limiter). That is easier said than done, but think about it?. If we had a device that would open the power circuit if the device sees over 95amps for 10sec or more (arbitrary values).

I respect your thought process and it could fix several things as you mention... but it's not really realistic as nothing exists to accomplish that and the real world of that type of limiter would be a lot of DNFs.
Racers would be pushing the limits of the amp/watt limit and if they go over the circuit just opens and the boat stops.:Sinking:

What happens if there's a weed around the prop or the prop gets a ding during a race and the amp draw goes up slightly?
The list could go on and on with minor things that could change a boat's amp draw slightly during a race or just on going changes during the life of a boat. Maybe the motor bearings or strut bushings wear and cause slightly more amp draw. Do limited class racers then need to either replace motors often or learn how to change out bearings after each race event in order to keep their motors/drive lines running as efficient as possible?

In a perfect world your idea would solve some things.
In the real world it isn't possible and would cause DNFs and frustrations that would result in the classes being unpopular.

IMO anyway... Which isn't worth much these days. :crying:

[HTVboats]

If there are limiters available how will you police or determine they won't be tampered with? Does every racer have to buy the same limiter from one manufacturer? Can I buy an XWZ limiter or do I have to use one on the approved limiter list?Opens up a very difficult inspection process.
Can size may not be perfect but can be easily inspected with conventional tools most every club has access to. Anyone raced a ROAR blinky class? Just cause it blinks doesn't mean it's legal and hasn't been modified. Rules that can't be easily enforced will be a real mess.
Mic

[Steven Vaccaro]

Ok, it seems there is only one proposal on the table. So now we sit and wait for IMPBA to handle this. Until then lets shut this down and reopen when there is a decision.