POLL: Who here is a member of IMPBA or NAMBA

[Darin Jordan]

My main point here is that with some few exceptions I do not think too many manufacturing decisions are based on the IMPBA or NAMBA FE rules.

And my point is that there COULD be if it were more clear as to what classes were being run and what the rules for those classes were...

[LuckyDuc]

Is there any insight as to what rules may be changed for NAMBA in regards to FE for next year?
I for one would like to see the 4S2P limit changed to allow for more than two parallel packs.

[Bill-SOCAL]

And my point is that there COULD be if it were more clear as to what classes were being run and what the rules for those classes were...

You've lost me now. I thought that was what the length limits were supposed to do?? What further definition is required so that hull makers can better determine what to make in order to stimulate FE racing??

[Darin Jordan]

You've lost me now. I thought that was what the length limits were supposed to do?? What further definition is required so that hull makers can better determine what to make in order to stimulate FE racing??

You are right, Bill... "hull makers" shouldn't have any problems with figuring out which hulls to make... so if we are talking about just "hull makers", then you got me...

[Bill-SOCAL]

You are right, Bill... "hull makers" shouldn't have any problems with figuring out which hulls to make... so if we are talking about just "hull makers", then you got me...

I take it from your sarcasm that I missed your point. SO what is it you are saying?? What rules need tweaking and for what reasons and what desired effect?

[Darin Jordan]

SO what is it you are saying?? What rules need tweaking and for what reasons and what desired effect?

Bill... I thought I had previously made my thoughts pretty clear and listed many of the details. Here is a summary:

• Get rid of the P-Limits on cells, revise the voltage to be "up to XX", instead of a min-max range
• Reduce the number of power classes overall
• Add P-Spec as a power class
• Update the LSH/LSO rules, or get rid of them due to P-Spec power class being added
• RE-Write the P-OPC rules so they actually make sense
• Either Update to modern power or archive the Crackerbox and ECO rules
• Either get rid of, or rewrite so they make sense, all the sections that refer back to the Nitro rules, I think that would be a good start. In fact, it would be preferred by me, to have the FE rules be a stand-alone set of rules completely, with no references back to any other rulesets, even if the wording is exactly the same.

I'm sure I can come up with more, but that's a pretty good list.

The desired effect??? Simple... to make it abundantly CLEAR what classes are being offered and to get the WHOLE country onboard with a set of rules, so everyone, everywhere, would be on the same page and running the same equipment... Kind of like we have tried to do with P-Spec stuff...

Seems pretty logical and simple in concept, to me.

[rockwerks]

Bill... I thought I had previously made my thoughts pretty clear and listed many of the details. Here is a summary:

• Get rid of the P-Limits on cells, revise the voltage to be "up to XX", instead of a min-max range
• Reduce the number of power classes overall
• Add P-Spec as a power class
• Update the LSH/LSO rules, or get rid of them due to P-Spec power class being added
• RE-Write the P-OPC rules so they actually make sense
• Either Update to modern power or archive the Crackerbox and ECO rules
• Either get rid of, or rewrite so they make sense, all the sections that refer back to the Nitro rules, I think that would be a good start. In fact, it would be preferred by me, to have the FE rules be a stand-alone set of rules completely, with no references back to any other rulesets, even if the wording is exactly the same.

I'm sure I can come up with more, but that's a pretty good list.

The desired effect??? Simple... to make it abundantly CLEAR what classes are being offered and to get the WHOLE country onboard with a set of rules, so everyone, everywhere, would be on the same page and running the same equipment... Kind of like we have tried to do with P-Spec stuff...

Seems pretty logical and simple in concept, to me.

Bingo as it stands now FE is and afterthought and is written as such. IF you go to any other form of sport the rules for each class are stated in that class listing not an obscure reference back to a different page in a different section etc.

[Ken Haines]

Only Minor Rule Changes

Of course, if it were up to me, I'd reduce the number of power classes down to just a few levels... maybe

Up to 2S - Open
Up to 4S - Spec
Up to 4S - Open
Up to 10S - Open

With the hull types Mono, Cat, Hydro, Sport Hydro, OPC Tunnel, and the additional grouping of Offshore (one class for each power level), can anyone honestly tell me that NAMBA would somehow be better off with MORE classes than that???

Just thinking "out loud"...

Hey Guys for a moment there I felt like we were back in time about a year and a half. You are all great guys and previously were all on the same side on our last rules fight. Lets not squash each other.
From my point of view the rules seemed to be working overall. The last two Nat's have operated under these rules. I will agree that there were no S class races. Darin, I know guys in your area do not race Q, but a lot of us do. This year Q -mono, Q-Sport, & Q-Hydro were good classes. These classes are just starting to take hold on that level, forcing a <40" boat to run open is not a fair change. I will however agree that running S & T together or even calling it Ultimate or open did work well at the past Nat's. If we kept the Q classes I could agree with that.
This is also more fair on hull sizes, because as you know S & T are the same. When we talk SAWS, different story. Guys like records there is no extra work in having all our existing classes, just more records that someone could chase, hopefully that new guy that just wants 1 record that he can feel proud of.
As far as re-looking at the MAH rules good idea, especially as the Lipo technology gains MAH in the same package. If you change the paralleling limit that works for me too. It would sure help getting battery configurations to fit in the Spec-riggers.
As far as LSO & LSH. Largest 2 classes at the past NATS. I think 22 & 24 per class.
We certainly should not fool with "much" in the most successful classes. As far as
the Cats, they certainly were used in the offshore classes in Q and Ultimate. They ran very well I may add, I'm still kicking myself for picking Q-offshore rather than Q-mono as my Team class with Newland, that may have cost us the team title or would have made it single digits anyway. I never factored in those Cats coming after the Dew boat in Q. I'm a dumb-ass sorry Dave, Fred & Joe. I digress
Just some of my thoughts don't beat me up too bad for being fairly happy with the current rules and only seeing minor changes neccessary.
Thanks, Ken

[Darin Jordan]

Ken, first off, be assured, that I'm not here to beat up an anybody, least of all you, Buddy... I totally respect your opinion and the contributions you have made to this hobby. You are much more involved than I can be at this time, and you've proven to be a great racer...

This year Q -mono, Q-Sport, & Q-Hydro were good classes. These classes are just starting to take hold on that level, forcing a <40" boat to run open is not a fair change. I will however agree that running S & T together or even calling it Ultimate or open did work well at the past Nat's. If we kept the Q classes I could agree with that.

If the current length limits were retained, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to keep the Q-power level as well. I was just giving an example of a breakdown.

However, if the length restrictions were changed... would there still a reason to keep the 6S-10S boats seperate?? I'm asking because I really don't know and am just brainstorming... The fastest boats on the water appear to be either P or Q boats... and once you get up to a certain length, the hull size starts getting less important... 40", 46", 48"... they all appear to race together fine...

When we talk SAWS, different story. Guys like records there is no extra work in having all our existing classes.

I have no problem having a list of classes for SAWs... I don't think I'm alone in thinking that SAWs should have their own rules, but that's another story...

If you change the paralleling limit that works for me too. It would sure help getting battery configurations to fit in the Spec-riggers.

Yup...

As far as LSO & LSH. Largest 2 classes at the past NATS. I think 22 & 24 per class. We certainly should not fool with "much" in the most successful classes.

BUT, these weren't REALLY LSO or LSH... They were club classes... "LSSH and LSSO, or whatever they call it...

If you implemented P-Spec power class, then what you would have is P-Spec Sport (was LSH), P-Spec Hydro, P-Spec Mono, P-Spec Offshore (was LSO), P-Spec OPC, etc... LSH/LSO and their P-Spec equivalents would be quite redundant... If people insist on keeping the class names, then whatever... just confuses the issue, but not worth arguing about.

Adding a P-Spec power class, then using the existing hull types, actually ADDS several new "classes" to the mix.

As far as the Cats, they certainly were used in the offshore classes in Q and Ultimate.

Honestly, I added the CAT class thing to my list because my good buddy, Bill, thinks it's a good idea...

Just some of my thoughts don't beat me up too bad for being fairly happy with the current rules and only seeing minor changes neccessary.
Thanks, Ken

Again, Never toward you, Ken!

I'm thinking these "minor" changes would turn into major ordeals, and, when you get down to actually implementing them, there is some extensive "revisioning" to the existing wording that has to be done to make it all clear...

NOTE: All responses are simply my opinion... Just thinking out loud. The owner of these opinions is solely responsible for their content!!

[Flying Scotsman]

Lads, this post was about who are members of two sanctioning bodies in North America, not who have the best rules etc. I hate the bickering about rules. Doby, I am with you for an FE boating body that has WORLD rules, not just North America?

Douggie

[rockwerks]

Lads, this post was about who are members of two sanctioning bodies in North America, not who have the best rules etc. I hate the bickering about rules. Doby, I am with you for an FE boating body that has WORLD rules, not just North America?

Douggie

That is the way to go! a stand alone world RC FE racing I LIKE IT!

[Fluid]

Guys, that organization already exists, it's called NAVIGA. Don't re-invent the wheel here - most of the world is already racing under the same 'WORLD' rules.

http://www.naviga.org/Pres_WhatIsNaviga.htm

.

[Flying Scotsman]

Not cheap to join, Jay but I was not aware of that organization

Douggie

[Darin Jordan]

Guys, that organization already exists, it's called NAVIGA. Don't re-invent the wheel here - most of the world is already racing under the same 'WORLD' rules.

http://www.naviga.org/Pres_WhatIsNaviga.htm

.

Jay... just curious... why is "most of the world" racing under these rules, but not us?? (or Canada)..?? This form of racing is REALLY different than what we do. Any idea why it never caught on here (and I'm NOT advocating it... might be fun, but I don't think ours is anything to scoff at either...)...

[Ken Haines]

Namba &amp; impba

Hey Darin,
Appreciate the post. I disagree with the better racer part, but we are mostly in agreement on all the rest.

A current Q-mono lets say like my Dew Boat (36" no Step 4), would get killed by a 45" Delta Force. These newer real large T boats make huge holes in the water, and make smaller boats really difficult to run. I'm sure there will a bunch of them at the next nats. You would have had to see it run this year in Michigan, just a hole different animal of a boat.


Back to the organization question.
I'm a member of IMPBA and NAMBA
They are both great groups.

As far as a new organization, the presidents of NAMBA and IMPBA put in tremendous amounts of hours more that most of us can appreciate. Neither of them talk bad about the other or their organizations.
Both of them tell me that even getting articles for their new letters out of anyone from the FE side is difficult or impossible with the exception of Lohring Miller.
So for some to talk about forming another organization for FE sort of makes me chuckle.

Just My 2 cents,
Ken