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

[JimClark]

Something like the talked about spec would help me ( a very low budget racer) find a motor that would be legal and in my miniscule racing budget

[RaceMechaniX]

Tyler, on the 1930's, is that actual weight?

I ask because the ones currently on my list (1930 CarLine) are LISTED as 230g....

The standard 1930 is a little heavier due to the longer leads.

TG

[Darin Jordan]

The standard 1930 is a little heavier due to the longer leads.

TG

Are the ones you are measuring the 6-wire or the standard 3? What are the shaft sizes?

[trigger]

We have run with Darin's proposal for about a season now in our Indy Admirals club races, in short we don't want to turn away new people that are "close" to the approved motor listing. It helps people join into the hobby with their particular boat, and to be honest we have not noticed any radical speed freaks. If its close to the approved spec we let people join in. obviously seasoned members know the rules and as new members become hooked, they migrate to either approved kit or other classes that best suit them. Personally speaking, I'm for a spec of sorts as described, and agree that the market of RTR's will somewhat dictate the future of where people enter into the hobby. There are plenty of other classes for the die-hard pro's to fight it out on the water.

[dethow]

And, I agree with the sentiments above... PLEASE don't NOT participate because you think you are a "newbie" or don't know enough... some of us DO have more experience, but this conversation should address the thoughts of all. Otherwise, how can we get 'new blood' into the hobby! More racers = MORE FUN!

Thank you.... I've always felt welcomed into this hobby and this just continues the understanding and patients of the more knowledgeable individuals. To be honest I was reluctant to say anything as I knew "you guys" have your reasons. But the patient explanations are appreciated.

Even as a "newbie" I'm following the existing situations, potential future problems and rational for making this more of a spec guideline rather then naming specific motor brands/types. I actually think this is a good idea and am getting excited for the possibilities.

I was looking on eBay for what a Leopard 3660 2050kv would cost. I couldn't find one on there but I did see several other Chinese made motors in the $40 area that would fit the above mentioned specs.

My big curiosity is... will there be an obvious speed difference going from a Turnigy to an Aquacraft to a TP and ultimately an expensive Neu 1409???
I'd have to believe that a $200 Neu motor would have to preform better and take more abuse then a $50 Turnigy.

But, Darin, based on what you said about PB being all 40mm and the possibility that AQ may end up going down that road to compete... Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about keeping all motors in the limited class equal to a current AQ or PB 36mm. After all, if someone buys a new IM31 with a 40mm motor that does 50mph... they are going to want a good 36mm replacement to run in limited classes that can still push their boat 50mph.

Are we going to run into an issue 5 years from now that most off the shelf boats are running 40mm motors? I'm guessing the answer is yes that may happen and NAMBA rules may have to be changed again to increase spec limits to allow for those stock motors' use in limited classes. Is that a correct assumption?

[Darin Jordan]

Are we going to run into an issue 5 years from now that most off the shelf boats are running 40mm motors?

Those boats/power systems already have a place to race... "P"... 4S, any motor(s)...

[dethow]

Those boats/power systems already have a place to race... "P"... 4S, any motor(s)...

Ahhh... yeah! See I forget about that because MMEU doesn't run enough open "P" classes.

[T.S.Davis]

MMEU guys won't build P boats for some reason. I suspect its a dough thing. p sport seems to be consconsistent this season though. That class is a scream. Love me some P mono too. Q sport is a little much for our puddle.

We all need to remember too. We're not racing to make a this change. By the time we get this test period under our belts the market may have dictated a direction weather we like it or not.

As Darin mentioned, PB's run man sized motors now. AQ is selling a less powerful setup. They may have no choice but to respond.

[Darin Jordan]

Thinking pragmatically about this, we could discuss this, get a general direction figured out, and submit it for a vote AND... we COULD make part of the proposal to be to define an implementation date. Target January 2017?

Just a thought. Guys would then have plenty of time to adjust.

[dethow]

Darin... I assume you are looking for some approval from people to proceed with the process of submitting for a vote.

Your idea seems to make the most sense. I don't think adding spec for wattage or max amps is a good idea since these would be hard to verify and some manufactures don't even list those specs. Some being Chinese stuff sold on eBay. I'm sure if one did more research on any manufacture the data could be found but I think it over complicates things for the new people like me that don't really have an understanding of what all those things mean.

But I can... and I think everyone can follow dimensions, weight and kv.

I also like the idea of an implementation date.

[longballlumber]

Thinking out loud:
By my count there are roughly 37ish motors on "the list” I am failing to see how 37 different motors supports the INTENT that was previously discussed?

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

Cost Control – low priority?

Amateur’s – Dos a list of 37 help or hurt this??? (hint: look at balanced competition)

Balanced Competition - Do you really think all 37 motors are going to provide BALANCED performance based on the package dimensions?

Ease of Entry – while RTR motors are included do you think they will be “balanced” with some or all of the motors listed?

Simply input…

Later,
Ball

[Quietlee]

I typically just sit back and take in all of the information. So far I think it's all been moving along pretty good. There's a couple things that I've seen on the thread that I'd like to put my thoughts on. I will say that I do like the thought of opening up and trying a few different motors for a while before anything is decided. We may find issues with some of the motors, while others may surprise or confuse us.
I've mainly been running AQ and PB motors over the years. Trial and error have lead to a few hot motors, but I've only had one failure. That motor had been used quite a bit anyway and I knew it's time was limited. I wanted to try something different after seeing all the chatter about motors so I picked up a couple of the TP's. We''ve had a pretty poor summer here so I haven't had as much opportunity to run them. We did get a chance to do some testing and was able to gather some data. For the concern about it being heavier than others, there wasn't that much difference in performance. I was surprised, but confused by the difference. ML Sport hydro was used to run three different props, then the motors were swapped and the same three props were used. The only thing that was changed was the timing on the ESC. Radar gun was used to capture speeds and temps were taken after four laps were recorded. Props were all detounged. Batteries charged after each run.

AQ 2030 kv
prop speed motor ESC
445 45 120 129
545 49 118 129
645 52 110 129
TP 1950 kv
445 50 110 130
545 47 117 140
645 47 129 115

Not exactly the kind of results we would expect. I have picked up an Eagle Tree in the last couple weeks. Really looking forward to getting that set up and running some more tests, but that could take some time with the water conditions here now. I'm also thinking of picking up something else from the "list" just to see what it'll do.

[Darin Jordan]

I am failing to see how 37 different motors supports the INTENT that was previously discussed?

Mike, EXCELLENT Questions. Thank you for participating! I was hoping some more would.

Since no one is answering you and I seem to be the one driving this idea, here are my thoughts:

- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control)

1) How does one tech this, or limit it? How do you right a rule to regulate this?
2) For the VERY FEW $200.00 motors on this list, there are a multitude of much lower cost options. Prices range from $35.00 on EBAY to $230.00 from Lehner. Does this not provide the opportunity for lower cost? The average motor on the list, runs in the $75.00 to $125.00 range.
3) P-LTD already lowers the cost of entry over P

a) Single Motor Only
b) Lower cost motors in general
c) Less Battery required (4000-6000mAh vs. 10,000)
d) Less ESC Required

- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills

1) Are the individual clubs not able to provide and "amateur class" on their own, that suits their areas needs?
2) Should a National Set of Rules, which really only count towards the ONE National event every year, and a few SAW races, be written to include essentially "training" classes?
3) Has this REALLY been a problem in the past? Individual clubs ALWAYS seem to include local classes to encompass this requirement. Here it was "Spec-SV27", in MMEU I believe they have a restricted N2 Sport Hydro Class, etc.


I would think that, just like happens to day, each club would bring along their members in a way conducive to getting them "up to speed". You can do that by simply offering a "run-what-you-brung" class or a "box-stock-RTR" class locally, and let them have at it. I'm not sure any of that fits in a set of National rules. It's not there for Gas or Nitro.

- Balanced Competition (Parity)

EVERY motor on this list, and any potential motors that would fit these specs, is going to be "on-par" with any other motor on this list. It has at LEAST as much parity as we have now. With the inclusion of the apparently popular idea of using the TP-3630-1950KV motor, it has INCREASED the upper threshold a bit, but overall, most of the motors listed have about the same performance potential. Some will be more efficient than others, but not by much, and those that are lower tend to be the ones that people wouldn't use anyhow. Those in the sweet spot regarding price-range are all in the 85% or higher efficiency. LOTs of options there.

There is only so much power you can get out of a motor of this size, with these dimensions, and under this KV restriction, on 4S. It's still all going to come down to the person setting up and racing the boat. Some will struggle, some will flourish, and a lot will run somewhere in between. Just like we do now.

Can you explain further your concerns with "parity", with the motors are all limited in max size, etc.??

- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)????

1) On a National level set of rules, is including RTRs, where the market is continually changing and improving and growing faster and more powerful, really the goal?
2) Would this not be handled better by individual clubs?
3) How would you effectively write rules that were flexible enough to allow WHATEVER might come down the pike, yet meet your other criteria (Balance, cost control, etc.)?

These are just some questions that come to mind when I consider the concerns, and the "goal" of the rule set.

Thoughts?

[Darin Jordan]

Ease of Entry – while RTR motors are included do you think they will be “balanced” with some or all of the motors listed?

I wanted to address this thought a bit further, and the thoughts above about trying to manage a set of rules to absorb and keep on "parity" with RTR offerings today, and in the future.

Please take a look at this photo:

RTR_MOTORS.jpg

I took this photo this morning.

Motors 3 and 4 represent the Dynamite (Pro Boat) and the AquaCraft P-LTD Legal motors we currently run. (sorry, NO WAY was I going to try to get that P.O.S. AQ Water jacket off and then back on again, just for a photo! )

Motor 2 is the current RTR Pro Boat BlackJack 29 v3 2000KV motor. It's not currently legal in P-LTD, but represents the very MAXIMUM physical size for the motors meeting the specification rule being discussed.

Motor 5 is a Castle/Neu 1406. This, and the 1409, which is slightly longer, represent the "feared" "expensive" Neu offerings that would also fit the spec.

Do any of these motors scare anyhow yet?? Would other motors in this same size range worry you? Please explain why?



Now... MOTOR #1 is the motor that is currently being delivered in the RTR Pro Boat Impulse 31 v3. It's 40x68mm, weighs over 400g (with water jacket I think. So well over 300g), and puts out a HUGE amount of power.

THIS is the direction that the RTR market is likely heading. Pro Boat is one of the largest suppliers of quality RTRs, and they've already gone there. I would expect to see more of this from Pro Boat, and I would expect to see a response to it from AQ and others.

HOW do you write a set of National Rules that can encompass this wide range of power options and still maintain the criteria noted above?

It is because of this that I am a strong supporter of the idea of letting the individual clubs LOCALLY define rules that would allow this kind of RTR to come play, but defining a more concise and solid set of rules Nationally.


Thoughts? Concerns? Rants? Anyhow ready to stab me yet??

[RayR]

I wish the view counter worked for this thread.