Namba oval racing class changes ***

[Darin Jordan]

Another question; Other than time trials, When was the last time ANYONE set up and followed through a FORMAL tech process at an FE race? Other than Terry checking voltages at the MI Cup 2 years ago (which was very informal), I have never been "TECH'D"

I'm going to ask the question again (at the risk of coming off as kind of an A$$)... CAN IT BE TECH'd??

You can't have a formal Tech Process if the rules aren't tech-able.

Can someone describe to me how you'd accurately tech a present P-LTD motor?? (Rhetorical... I already know the answer).

I'm ready to just leave P-LTD exactly like it is and it WILL die off in 2-3 years, just do to present motor supplies. I suppose my intent would be to keep the class going with a techable set of rules, using an endless supply of motors that automatically refreshes itself without having to revisit the rules, and to keep the power available under a certain maximum standard.

The effect: A LIMITED power (maximum sized motors) 4-Cell ("P) class that provides a reasonable level of parity (you're only going to get SO much power out of this limited size of motor) and isn't beholden to the offerings of any ONE, or two, or ?? motor suppliers. If you find a motor that fits the dimensional limits that will run on 4S, It's legal.

[longballlumber]

The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference? Do you really think you'll get the same participation numbers (or better) by having those classes vs. a more refined limited (spec) class? Is the perception the class will be bring in new racers?

I get your tech-able soap box, but I am not sure why it's a priority all of a sudden. We have been running for years on the honor system; and it's worked for the most part (i think).

[Darin Jordan]

The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference?

I disagree with this premise... REAL P-Boats are allowed twins (or ANY number of motors)... motors are unlimited ( 1515's, 1527's, 1530's etc...), boats are full 34", 4S2P 10,000mAh, 200+Amp ESCs... It's not accurate to say "small performance difference", just because the majority aren't running there. And it's REALLY not accurate to say small cost difference.

Honestly, I don't care what happens here one-way or the other, as far as official NATIONAL NAMBA rules go. We can just avoid the discussions and let P-LTD run it's course. Participation if fine. It's the biggest class going.

But, what I DO KNOW, is that motor supplies ARE going to fall by the wayside. It's already happening. Get those 1500KV Dynamites now, while you still can. 1800's are back... are they, or will they be the same? Who knows. Anything new from AQ lately? Hopefully??

Some of my local club members approached me at several of our recent Nats planning meetings and we've discussed this issue and that's part of why this has come up. It's a LOCAL issue for us, as a club of over 30 people, and every class is P-LTD. And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.

Why did I post it here? Because I wanted to see what other clubs thought. That's it. It's always nice to hear other opinions and see options/concerns that we may not have considered.

[Coug90]

Love this discussion. I've been asking the same questions in regards to 1:10 Scale racing. The idea of getting away from any particular motors and trying to set a group of spec limitations instead had come up in our club. It's too frustrating to keep losing motor options when supplies run out or quality in production changes. I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow. The more I hear, the more I've come to agree. I'll be interested to see how this issue turns out with our club and on a national level.

[Darin Jordan]

I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow.

Mine is just one opinion, but after playing with this stuff for a few years, and literally investing nearly $1000.00 in JUST testing all these motors, I've come to the conclusion that we really only have two viable options:

1) LIMIT the motor options to just ONE CHOICE. Revisit the choice and the rules each year or two, depending on supply. Deal with the tech issues, etc.

2) LIMIT the motor options by physical size. Never have to revisit the rules again. Make a go/no-go gauge for tech. Go racing.

Those can both be considered very "fair" options, depending on your views. (I won't go political on this, but I EASILY could! )

One makes everyone the same, stringent, and clearly defined "choice" of motor, and leaves everyone to have to deal with the numerous tech and supply issues that go with that choice. It also puts a heavy burden on the Club, as this motor definition will have to be revisited as supply issues occur, and it also leaves the user beholden to the ONE supplier.

The other one provides everyone an equal opportunity at success, but leaves it up to the individual to decide and choose, within some defined but VERY easy to follow dimensional parameters. Some will choose wisely, others perhaps not so much, but all would be fair given that there is nothing locking you into your choice if you happened to choose wrong the first time around. When one finds a better way, others can follow and enjoy that success as well. Power levels will naturally be held to a clear limit, because, well, size matters.

Clearly, I choose option 2.

[ray schrauwen]

Option 2 is cool because it's more inclusive. The slight advantages of any spec motor by size will usually get negated by race conditions and other things that happen in a race.

[T.S.Davis]

And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.

This is why I keep coming back to my "why wait?" stance. Consider those that actually are willing to travel. I recognize it's a tiny group and a bit self serving on my part to be concerned about it but I could see the list of travelers getting even smaller.

If our local gang opted for this new idea and I field oh let's say 10 limited boats with motors x,y,z to meet the size spec.....................and I then decide to travel too. Pick any race really. I need to have legal stuff per their rules when I get there. For instance if I went to the Vegas NATS I would have to come up with additional motors based on the old spec. Then an extra or two for the inevitable hiccup. Every boat has to be re-calibrated in regards to props, struts, CG. Maybe. Who knows. Months of testing to get that right if I'm already racing based on the new potential size spec. Ugh. Guess which races I wont be traveling to? Any clinging to the old spec.

I "could" just run the old spec as it will still be legal but up here this new idea is going to need me on board. Not trying to be a weeny (it's a gift). That's just the way it is.

If local clubs go with this new idea to see how it pans but we wait to get it in the book there wont be any travelers in 2017. Just a hunch.

[T.S.Davis]

BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

[Doby]

BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

Did you just burst into flames when you wrote this?????

[T.S.Davis]

haha More like a smolder.

I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?

[Doby]

haha More like a smolder.

I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?

It matters not to me..as long as the current batch of motors are still OK....

I still think that motors are the least of the worries when racing...a few KV here or there, a few mm difference make no difference.....proper set up and driving are much bigger factors.

Hard to finish a race if the boats un-drivable and upside-down.

[raptor347]

BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.

[T.S.Davis]

Didn't think of that.

We had a pretty nasty collision at our last race. I was running the carbon PayPak on loan. Todd spun in front of me with the Winston lobster. Before the CD could say "sp.." I hit him wide open. Never even saw him. Add a few mph and we would have needed a pool skimmer.

[Coug90]

Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.

He's absolutely right. The hull limitations cap the performance. That is why our club opted for a motor that would slow our vintage class down by about 5 mph a few years back. An appropriate set of motor specs could be made separately for modern boats, but either way, within a few years, you will see speeds return to what you had originally due to guys getting used to the spec and setups and using better props and battery options that improve all the time. We'll always be chasing a moving target. The problem is how to manage that based on the goals set for the class. You can limit spec on all of the gear, but at some point it gets to be a detriment to managing. The more you isolate spec, the more you potentially have to tech if you don't want to rely on the buddy system as much. Motors are the most difficult piece to tech and to manage long term. Seems reasonable to go in a direction that would make motor tech and class longevity planning easier to deal with.

[Ronbo]

Regarding 1/10th scale, the proposed motor dimensions should work fine in modern, but as stated previously vintage would be interesting. Moving away from scale in vintage defeats the purpose of scale, otherwise its just a sport hydro class. The current motors just aren't built well enough (mostly the power wires, wth??) I run a Leopard 3674 2200kv in my Oberto, and heat isn't a factor (our water temps are generally cooler here). I haven't run anything like a AQ2030 kv size motor, so I don't know what the motors in the 36x61mm range would do at higher than 1500-1700kv like we currently use.

Has anyone looked at outrunner specs for the proposed classes?

We use a smaller kv outrunner in vintage here (Coug90 and myself club) with a comparable outrunner with himax and proboat in classic modern. But as mentioned, we have to revisit the motor spec rules every so often as supply changes. This keeps the speeds at a certain level for the hulls and keeps it competitive.

Not sure what 1/8th scale does.