NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

[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...

New_P_Ltd.jpg

[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=ACA7381D2BFC72351748&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...

April_Propwash.jpg

April_2018_Propwash_001.jpgApril_2018_Propwash_002.jpgApril_2018_Propwash_003.jpgApril_2018_Propwash_004.jpg

[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...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]166598[/ATTACH]

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.
And thanks for chiming in Darin. Nice to hear from the person whom is most likely the smartest in the room on this subject.

[dethow]

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

WHY???
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...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]166603[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]166599[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]166600[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]166601[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]166602[/ATTACH]

Mike 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?" ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MIKE!

[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.. 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! I promise you'll be punished appropriately for your time and effort.

Later...??.

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