NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

[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 ?
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/f7b28fb053d...&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. Please send him the results of your testing.

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

[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

[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

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.

[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.