P-Limited Motors - Im going to jump on the hot seat.

[Darin Jordan]

Just like with present P-LTD motor allowances, everyone has their "go-to" motors. Some discover them. Others follow those that did. But, one way, or the other, people end up finding motors they are happy running.

You can only make SOOO MUCH power from any motor. It's limited by several factors, but ultimately it's physical size limits the maximum power you will get. If you could somehow, magically, make a motor that is 100% efficient, that would define the ultimate power limit for a specific motor size. The differences between a Leopard vs. a TP vs. a Neu vs. a Turnigy vs. a SSS vs. a ??? is going to be quality of materials and efficiency.

Again, I say pick your poison and go race.

Someone, somewhere, is going to show up with a motor that is slightly better quality and will probably have a slight power advantage, at first, anyhow. Those that follow, well, will. Others might go try to find something even better. Ultimately, however, things are going to be fairly balanced, and defined, and no matter WHAT new version of a 36mm x 61mm motor becomes available, you will NEVER get more power out of it.

In the meantime, we've all been happily racing along, not arguing about heat-shrink, or bearings, or whether or not a motor has been opened up. We've not concerned ourselves with "in-line" production changes, part numbers, getting another motor approved, supply chains, or....

We've just raced and, hopefully, had a beer or two afterwards.

[T.S.Davis]

I'm finding more and more that you have to be able to drive the danged thing.

Example. Ty ran a $120 TP in P sport this passed weekend. I had to talk him out of lapping the guys that were running the Neu motors. It's all in the setup. I have a hotter Neu motor for P sport but driving it is really tough.

I doubt seriously that Steve would build motors just for us. He's got a bigger client base to keep happy than FE racers. We're not even a blip on the rc market radar.

[rayzerdesigns]

I'm in with the spec size.. Let guys run what they want kv then..I don't run what everyone else runs anyways.. What about limiting dpeedo to 120 amp??

[Rookieboater]

I have read every page of this discussion and believe that allowing a certain size motor is the best way to go. However looking at the NAMBA rules I believe, and I could be wrong, but every sanctioned race allows for this option.

P Limited rules as per the NAMBA Rulebook,

d. P-Limited Approved Motors
i) The motors shall be used as shipped from the manufacturer, with the
exception of creating a drive shaft flat spot, adding water cooling, and
allowing the motor to be connected to the ESC by any means.
ii) Currently approved motors
Brand Model Description
AquaCraft AQUG7000 L36/56 7.2-18V – 6 pole brushless
AQUG7001 36-56-2030 – 6 pole brushless
AQUG7002 36-56-1800 – 6 pole brushless
Himax HB3630 1500 brushless – 6 pole brushless
ProBoat PRB3310 A3630-1500 – 6 pole brushless
PRB4017 A3630-1800 – 6 pole brushless
DYNM3835 A3630-1500kv – 6 pole brushless,
water cooled, marine motor
DYNM3830 A3630-1800kv – 6 pole brushless,
water cooled, marine motor
iii) In addition, the CD has the discretion to allow the following:
(a) An aftermarket motor that is a re-labeled and exact copy of any
approved motor.
(b) Any generational change of an approved motor, or a motor that
is used in a Ready To Run (RTR) offering from a manufacturer
that produces over 100 units of said offering, as long as there is
no more than a 5% increase in any of the following
manufacturers specifications as compared to any single
approved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating,
mass, and MSRP.
(c) The race flyer shall list additional allowed motors for the event

Seems to me you guys could just list a spec size at your local races, still be under NAMBA rules and see how it goes. If your local area likes the added motors then you could propose a more defined rule for it. Just advertise you are going to allow these motors at the race and your good to go.

Am I missing something here????

[Fluid]

Spec sizing would not follow the existing NAMBA rules. If TP had a motor the same size as a ProBoat A3650 it would not be legal under the rules, it is not equivalent (4 poles). It would also not be legal as it is not a generational change. A local CD listing a TP motor as legal does not meet NAMBA rules for all events, just that one.

There is no perfect answer. Size limits are probably the best, and the racers will find out which specific motor gives the best overall performance. What if that motor costs $200? Nothing is a perfect answer....


.

[Darin Jordan]

What about limiting dpeedo to 120 amp??

NO... unless you have a foolproof way to tech it...

[Darin Jordan]

What if that motor costs $200? Nothing is a perfect answer....


.

If a racer thinks they need to spend $200.00 on a motor to be competitive... more power to them.

That's what I think...

[Darin Jordan]

Just advertise you are going to allow these motors at the race and your good to go.

Am I missing something here????

Local clubs generally don't sanction their monthly or ?? races.

Either way... local clubs can already do whatever they generally want.

My thought above is in NO WAY an attempt to "fix" P-LTD... I would leave P-LTD exactly like it is... make NO changes to it for the long-term... No additions, etc... No further arguing necessary.

The "P-LITE" thought would be an entirely different entity. It would ELIMINATE the need to specify ANY PARTICULAR motors... Define a MAX Length and Diameter.

Teching would be done with a go/nogo gauge or a pair of calipers. If you want to run an outrunner... fine... it still needs to fit into the 36mm x 61mm mold (by the way... these are approximate... might need to make them 36.3mm or something like that... but you get the point.)

P-LTD boats would still fit the mold... so they'd could competitively race the class as-is. Definitely just run it at a Club level initially. If it gains momentum, maybe take the next step.

My guess is that it would end up taking over P-LTD and P-LTD would go away. That would be ideal, honestly. People would NOT have to retool entire fleets, but now the options are opened up and the class would literally be a more limited performance version of "P" (Single vs. multi-motor, and drastically limited in motor size).

Seems like a solid way forward in my opinion.

[T.S.Davis]

Also, the NAMBA brass is under the impression that failure to comply with class rules "could" result in the loss of insurance coverage. They're wrong of course but this is why I was suggesting we just walk away from "limited" in favor of P Lite or what ever we call it.

If we call the classes "P limited" but allow non compliant motors.....by they're interpretation we're taking a risk. With P lite we would be running P classes with a self imposed limitation. Keeps the brass off or a$$es while clubs try it out.

[dethow]

Darin... I like it.
The simple fact is that no matter what change is made their will be a certain few that will oppose it. And I get that there will be some growing pains and minor problem the first year or two. But the end result of the measurements only idea will be the best long term fix that will adjust itself out over a couple race seasons.

I personally would prefer to just replace "Limited" with this "Lite", but I can see the thought process of just adding "Lite" and letting "Limited" just die off on its own by either people sick of burning up those motors or lack of supply for one reason or another.

[Steven Vaccaro]

This will not stop people from burning up motors. But will allow a greater range of motors. Could be good, could be bad. Racing this past weekend you could see that many of the boats were similar in speed, the better drivers won.

[Doby]

This will not stop people from burning up motors. But will allow a greater range of motors. Could be good, could be bad. Racing this past weekend you could see that many of the boats were similar in speed, the better drivers won.

Wow..imagine that...you need to be able to drive...who wudda thunk dat??????

[Steven Vaccaro]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

[Doby]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

I get it totally Steve...agree with you 100%.

[Darin Jordan]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

I get that... But I think one would find, in this case, that it wouldn't have to be an "arms race"... If someone thinks they need a $200.00 motor to compete, who am I to stop them. Do I think my choice of motor, which may only cost me $100.00, will be a disadvantage? Nope... To each their own. I just don't think that there is THAT much advantage to be gained there.

And, Steven is absolutely right about not keeping people from "burning things up"... That's going to happen regardless of what we do, short of spec'ing an entire boat system (hull, motor, prop, esc, etc... the "one hull" idea).

As for the "Lite" vs. "Limited" thing... the "Limited" part still applies... Motors are being limited, both in number and physical size. Heck, I wouldn't even change the name... Change one box in the rules and add one figure and it's done. :)

Just trying to keep things simple... (with NAMBA rules??? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA..... that's funny right there. )