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

[RaceMechaniX]

Darin, I believe all the Lehner Basic motors are 2 pole as well.
TG

[raptor347]

The AQUG7000 motor is still available as well.

[T.S.Davis]

So lets ask; What was/is the intent of P-Limited (previously LSH/O)?

This will be a tough question. There aren't many that will recall the inception of LSH and LSO. That's where it all started. I think Randy actually proposed it back in 2002 or 2003. It was prior to brushless.

LSH was basically a response to a setup we were seeing over and over that worked. I was only a year or so into racing so I don't know all the details but my understanding is that the intent was parity at minimal investment. But honestly, it's what guys were already running. So it was more a response to a developed concept. We had a TON of fun with these too.

Then LSO was an extension of what we all thought was working pretty well in sport hydro. That was cooked up around 2004 maybe.

The 700 motors were great but to get to the front you needed to prep them. There were all kinds of crazy things guys would do to them. Tab coolers. Under water break in's for hours at low voltage. They worked but required attention to really get the most from them.

Then when the SV27 came along and it was basically a 12 cell brushless combo that could be had for about the same cost as a decent speedo and 700 motor. The motors lasted longer, were faster, and required no prep. Multiple clubs were putting them in the LSH and LSO boats. Then PB came out with some RTR motors that worked too. Then there was the 2030 in the UL. Clubs were running it and expanding with RTR's and scratchies racing together. So again the organization responded. Or I should say, some took it upon themselves to put on paper what was being run and go through the motions.

Some will argue but since I was in on the text and submitted it at the club, district, and national level, I can tell you that the intent was to capture what some clubs were already finding success with. That was the combination of the RTR's and the guys willing to assemble racing on the cheap. None of those three stands alone. Not if you want to expand your participation. That's my opinion based on what we saw here in MI. We would still be 5 guys just chasing national events without the RTR offerings.

So for my efforts I would like to see us end up with:

Parity
Cost control
Ease of entry

Not sure about that order. Some don't want the RTR guys but I think ignoring them is a mistake. Shy of driving it for them we want it to be as easy as possible for someone to get into racing and be in the ball park speed wise.

For the record, the only right way to move on to a "next" phase is for a club or two to pick up the spec (what ever it is) and run it for a season. Someone is going to have to bite the bullet and make it happen if we decide there needs to be a "next"......... So in my eyes we're actually talking about a 2016 season proof of concept span for a potential vote in 2017.

Every iteration of limited thus far has been in response to what clubs were already doing and were not a dictate from the organization. That may seem crazy but that's historically how rules have been changed. IMPBA has a one year trial rules too if I remember.

See why I was pushing us to at least talk about it now and not when the supply dries up? We're down to 50% of the motors gone now.

[longballlumber]

My cut at that question:

The intent of the P-Limited class is to provide a lower powered and lower cost alternative to the regular "P" class by restricting the number of motors allowed to a single motor and restricting the allowable motor size to a specific maximum set of dimensions and RPM. This class will provide a place for amateurs to gain experience, and for everyone to enjoy a lower cost, more evenly balanced competitive class of racing.


That's my simple take on it, at least at this evolution of the game.

Thanks Darin

Wasn't this touted as a class designed to allow those with RTR boats purchased from their LHS a place to "fit in"? After all, that is where the motor list came from... Do we think RTR offerings will be included in future "intent"? IMO the answer to that question will have drastic results as we move forward. Given the current skill set at each Art Box manufacturer, I am not sure what the answer is. I feel the intrust in designing new products that fit within the NAMBA/IMPBA hull guidelines is minimal at best.

INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills
- Balanced Competition
- ????Capture RTR offerings the best we can????

If you feel I have missed anything please let me know... Anyone Else?

[rayzerdesigns]

I think a $100 cap might be too much..as for the himax..I have tested those..against the dynamite 1500..they are def not a 1500kv..little higher..and I have burnt up every one I have tried..but that's me..i really think if we are going to try and make it as fair and even as possible we need one manufacturer..too many variables if not..i think one manufacturer say like tp..or leopard..just keep a max kv and size..say 36x56..max kv 2000..you could use less kv..but not more..just a thought..yes..it would probably not make certain people happy..and for the record..i have no problem with current selection..just my opinion if we go this route..i say pick a manufacturer..a size and kv limit..and def a lower cost..im not sure what a leopard or tp would cost for a 36x56..but probably cheaper than a aq2030 which is usually 79 retail..the dynamite is 60 I believe..just my 2 cents..im liking the positive vibe now

[rayzerdesigns]

just looked on here..tp motors a little more expensive..but steve sells the leopards f.or 56.99 with a water jacket..36x50..again just a thought..but like hearing different options..and im still ok with current selection of p limited motors

[longballlumber]

INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control)
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills
- Balanced Competition (Parity)
- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)????
- ????Single Source of Supply????

[Darin Jordan]

Do we think RTR offerings will be included in future "intent"? IMO the answer to that question will have drastic results as we move forward.

My take on RTRs, being sort of close to that industry...

I can only speak for Pro Boat, but their current and future RTRs are offering power systems that are so FAR beyond these power systems that it would not be prudent to even consider including them.

For example, the IM31 V3 comes with a 4072 1750KV motor. I run the thing in P-Mono and can compete, it's that fast.

Pro Boat, from a power system standpoint, isn't targeting "spec racing" classes. The hulls can fit, but the power systems never will again, based on current specs.

I also know that AquaCraft is going through a transition. Mike Z is gone. I'm not sure which direction they are heading.


The way I defined the initial discussion proposed specs above, You can still take, say, an IM31 and swap in a legal motor and go race.

I think trying to define a class around a constantly fluctuating, and dynamic market, like the RTR industry, is going to cause constant flux.


I would like to see this spec be inclusive, but NOT attached to, ANY manufacturer or supply chain. That is in impetus for my part of this discussion. Nitro, for example, isn't having to constantly evolve it's motor rules. They define max dimensions, and they go race. I'd like to see NAMBA P-LTD head in that direction.

[GixerGuy1978]

just looked on here..tp motors a little more expensive..but steve sells the leopards f.or 56.99 with a water jacket..36x50..again just a thought..but like hearing different options..and im still ok with current selection of p limited motors

The problem with this is that really your only adding one more motor to the list. We need to think bigger and long term solutions. I do like the trying to limit kv, dimensions, poles, sensor/less etc, but I also believe a $$$ motor cap needs to be in place also. This $$$ cap would limit any motor manufacture from creating a superior motor and as technology advances and/or price to make a motor drops in the future. All future offerings would essentially be shared amongst manufacturers.

[Darin Jordan]

I think a $100 cap might be too much..

I'm going to need someone to SHOW me specifically how a price cap is going to help, or specifically, what the fears are.

If someone wants to buy a Castle or a Neu or even a Lehner, that physically fits the legal specs and is of the appropriate KV, exactly WHERE is their advantage.

ALSO, when you limit the class allowance to only "cheap Chinese motors", you retain the issues we have today with quality, supply chain, varying specs, etc...

Are you saving the class money by forcing people to run cheaper motors that may fail more often than a bit more expensive equivalent?

HOW do you tech it? MSRP? That's always inflated, hard to verify, etc., especially when you are ordering from overseas, etc.

In my experience, the price cap is simply a feel good measure. Especially with the quality of many of the available mid-priced motors today.

Personally, I'm not in a position to build a fleet of Neu powered boats, but I feel very comfortable that, given the spec, it wouldn't be necessary. I could compete with my 1500 Pro Boat, or with a 110.00 TP, or ???

[Darin Jordan]

A spec people may be not considering as much as they should: Motor Weight.

Motor Weight is really the great equalizer here. "Better" motors have a higher mass (=MORE COPPER). That all comes at a weight cost.

With the weight limit in place, it severely limits just how much "better" one motor can be than another. Improvements ALWAYS involve mass, even stator magnet angle changes. Bigger wire, more copper, stronger magnets... all have more weight.

It really is the REAL cap here...

[Steven Vaccaro]

A few years ago, someone could argue that if this was to happen the rich guys would dominate by buying neu motors. I believe that's just not the case any longer. These days there are plenty of good motors that are inexpensive and would only be a couple of clicks efficiency wise behind a neu motor. Sure the neu or lehner guy would have an advantage, but we all know that there is far more involved in racing than 3% more efficiency in a motor.

[GixerGuy1978]

Great thanks Darin, that answers my question regarding price cap. I would like to change my price cap to weight then. Lol i guess my train of thought was related to how much someone could 'push' the limits with a more expensive/better withstanding heat motor do to the higher cost motors. Mucho better bringing the weight spec in. Is actually including that with my above comment 'etc'. Nicely done.

[RandyatBBY]

This will be a tough question. There aren't many that will recall the inception of LSH and LSO. That's where it all started. I think Randy actually proposed it back in 2002 or 2003. It was prior to brushless.

LSH was basically a response to a setup we were seeing over and over that worked. I was only a year or so into racing so I don't know all the details but my understanding is that the intent was parity at minimal investment. But honestly, it's what guys were already running. So it was more a response to a developed concept. We had a TON of fun with these too.

It was Andy Kunz, Dan Chase and my self that in visioned and started LSH. The current Idea was started by me at the 2008 NAMBA Nats in Minden CA. Then others ran with the Idea and took it another step to what we have today. I will reply more if asked to.

[T.S.Davis]

I would like to see this spec be inclusive, but NOT attached to, ANY manufacturer or supply chain.

That's where I'm at too.

On the price thing, it may come down to perception to a degree. A guy that gets beat by a Neu or even a TP is going to think to himself "I'm getting beat by a better motor". Never realizing that the guy that beat him spent 4 hours tweaking his drive line and twice as long working on the ride surfaces of his boat. Especially at the entry level.

The weight seems like an equalizer but what about better bearings? Not sure that's a game changer though. How about a carbon fiber can and use the weight savings to build more copper or rotor in?

Verifying an MSRP would be a bugger if you had to do it on race day. Plus, if a vendor/supplier really wanted to they could buy a bunch of something and move them at cost. Make the MSRP just enough to cover the shipping. Then you call to get one and "as long as I got ya on the phone". This happened to us with the 700 motors. Motors designed to make the phone ring. Worked too.