Mmeu 2017 supplement rules

[Darin Jordan]

Just to disspell a myth that keeps popping back up here... namely that those running P-LTD want "to run at P-Speeds"...

The motor on the bottom in this picture is a 36.3mm x 61.2mm Brushless motor... the largest size that would be allowed in P-LTD, or "M-Spec", as Terry likes to confusingly call it... ( )

The motor on the top is just the BEGINNING of what you might run in a real P sized boat. It's 40mm by I believe 84mm, which is roughly equivalent to the size of a Neu 1521 or 1527.

Nuff Said... Let's just end that thought right now...

20160202_193433.jpg

What P-LTD/M-Spec is trying to do is provide a limited performance 4S Class that utilized relatively inexpensive power systems, and readily available hulls, which would include RTR offerings that are in the 27" - 34" range and come with a standard 36mm x 60mm motor.

[T.S.Davis]

Yep. We rounded up to 37mmx62mm so that hopefully fluctuations in the production of these will still be legal. The PB motor Darin posted is 36.3x61.2. What happens when it's 36.31? Illegal!

I need to fix it? Why me? I'm not doing enough for the organization already? Besides, I'm an idiot, I don't even know what "it" is !!

Because I'm an IMPBA newbie.

My "it" list
Get rid of 1/8 registration (no demand)
Get rid of the 1/8 motor list (no sense)
Allow twins in P. At least for cats at a minimum. (why not again? Nobody knows)
Get rid of the single source requirement for twin setups. (because it's dumb)

If/when this spec thing works we should have a little documentation to back it up. Then maybe do trial run of the rule set. Have the BOD review the idea the right way. Distribute it through the Propwash and such. I think this new approach will hold up where as the old way had a shelf life.

[Darin Jordan]

Yep. We rounded up to 37mmx62mm so that hopefully fluctuations in the production of these will still be legal. The PB motor Darin posted is 36.3x61.2. What happens when it's 36.31? Illegal!

I don't work from speculation or fear... I work from logic and data...

P_LITE_MOTOR_SIZES.jpg

[dethow]

Darin, with all due respect our rounding to 37mm x 62mm has nothing to do with "speculation or fear". It comes from real data which members of our club have seen some variations in actual sizes for same motors. Even Steve Neu says that there will be some minor variations in sizes due to different production dates and machinery setup. Steve also stated that even though his spec drawings for 14xx series motors show the 1412 as 61mm long, he can not guarantee that all made will not exceed 61mm. He said there needs to be at least a 0.5 to 0.75mm tolerance for machining. And by the way... his spec drawing shows the 14xx series motor as having a diameter of 36.5mm while your spread sheet shows 36.3mm. ???
And right now I own 14xx series motors that have a diameter of 36.55mm. Same caliper is measuring a TP3630 at 36.15mm.

[Darin Jordan]

And by the way... his spec drawing shows the 14xx series motor as having a diameter of 36.5mm while your spread sheet shows 36.3mm. ???
And right now I own 14xx series motors that have a diameter of 36.55mm. Same caliper is measuring a TP3630 at 36.15mm.

Mine are actual measurements of motors that were sitting on my bench...

It's all "rules-creep" to me... Next thing they'll start making 1412s in a "37mmx62mm" can, and they'll measure 37.1mm, and people will be wanting more "tolerance"...

[dethow]

Mine are actual measurements of motors that were sitting on my bench...

It's all "rules-creep" to me... Next thing they'll start making 1412s in a "37mmx62mm" can, and they'll measure 37.1mm, and people will be wanting more "tolerance"...

Darin... My measurements are from motors sitting on MY bench as well. And my motors measure 36.55mm.
I guess I will never run in your club because your motors measure 36.3mm and that's the rule. Even though the manufacture's drawing even shows a diameter of 36.5mm.

How does that make sense to cap at what's on YOUR bench which doesn't even match the manufacture specs? And now I've just made you aware that there are real 14xx motors on someone's bench measuring 36.55mm

Darin, you can do what you'd like with your club and set of rules. Just don't appreciate you categorizing our rules as being based on "speculation and fear".
We have two data points that show a Neu 14xx motor is between 36.5mm to 36.55mm and you have your rules set based on one data point at 36.3mm.

And if Neu ever starts making 1412s at 37mm x 62mm then any motor that exceeds that will have to be sent back for exceeding spec drawings and reasonable tolerances.

[Darin Jordan]

DWe have two data points that show a Neu 14xx motor is between 36.5mm to 36.55mm and you have your rules set based on one data point at 36.3mm.

And if Neu ever starts making 1412s at 37mm x 62mm then any motor that exceeds that will have to be sent back for exceeding spec drawings and reasonable tolerances.

You are assuming that people were interested in including NEUs in the process when this all started... That was a specific "fear" at the time...

And, don't kid yourself... The only reason these rules go through such broad and wild discussions is because of VAST speculation, and a lot of fear...

Round away... It doesn't matter to me one iota... as long as it's capped...

[dethow]

We will and we will push for that to be the set rule if there ever is a set rule.
We at MMEU do not want to see someone disqualified from racing because their motor measures 36.55mm. And then have to tell them... "Well, it doesn't match what was on Darin Jordan's bench." We'll go with what manufactures are telling us. Spec sheet shows 36.5mm and manufactures states that there needs to be some tolerances for manufacturing. That just makes sense to us and it's not speculation or fear.

[Darin Jordan]

That just makes sense to us and it's not speculation or fear.

It makes sense to me as well, clearly, but then, I've been there from the beginning, when Terry and I were working through this. At THAT time, yes, there was, as with BL motor, Lipos, etc., LOTs of "fear and speculation" going on, driving many to argue. It's what prompted me to do the motor testing in the first place... It's easy to say it makes sense NOW, now that it's in place and making "sense" to people, but I was in the trenches... I have people, some from your area, still thinking I've ruined this hobby, after all. :)

You aren't going to get an argument from me on your 37mm x 62mm spec... whatever. It'll work fine and definitely is inclusive. It just will include motors that others were "fearful" of. Just the reality of it.

Make it happen!

[TRUCKPULL]

My "it" list
Get rid of 1/8 registration (no demand)
Get rid of the 1/8 motor list (no sense)
Allow twins in P. At least for cats at a minimum. (why not again? Nobody knows)
Get rid of the single source requirement for twin setups. (because it's dumb)

Terry
I must have mist this one:
Single source requirement for twin setups.

Where did you find it?

Allow twins in P. At least for cats at a minimum.
I already sold my "P" Cat because of this rule, I lost well over $500 on it.

Larry

[Doby]

I'll assume that whatever measuring device each club uses will have a calibration certificate traceable back to a NIST standard. Also, motor measurements need to be made in a climate controlled environment.

Otherwise clubs could actually "control" the motors allowed to run. Some measure fine...others are just a tad over and a big no no.

Perhaps there should be one IMPBA measurement device (or NAMBA, or God forbid both organizations share one) that is sent around to each club for there use in determining compliance.

But then again, during transport something could happen and the device would have to be re-calibrated to NIST before use. (with supporting documentation of course).

I can just see the legal challenges in court happening in the near future.

Here are some links to help clear all this up.

https://www.nist.gov/

https://www.ncsli.org/c/f/p12/REG_2012.PRE.558.1664.pdf

http://www.rhopointmetrology.com/metrology-instruments.html

https://www.qualitydigest.com/magazine/1999/feb/article/gauge-use-and-abuse-guide-common-gauge-misuse.html

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/6098/Why-Calibrate-an-Instrument.aspx

I'm bored.

[dethow]

Well Darin, one place we can fully agree is that the Lehner 1930 w/fan shouldn't be allowed which measures 62.0mm long.
At the time of our vote I raised protest that we should go with 61.5mm max to make sure that motor is excluded.

Now we have word that a Florida club place a price cap in order to block that motor.

But it's all good... a couple of our members are going to run them this season and we'll see what happens. I'm just pushing that (if there is an issue) we do not go with a price limit. Just need to pull back the size to 61.5mm and the problem is fixed.

[dethow]

I'll assume that whatever measuring device each club uses will have a calibration certificate traceable back to a NIST standard. Also, motor measurements need to be made in a climate controlled environment.

Otherwise clubs could actually "control" the motors allowed to run. Some measure fine...others are just a tad over and a big no no.

Agreed... yet another reason for some tolerance.

[Darin Jordan]

Well Darin, one place we can fully agree is that the Lehner 1930 w/fan shouldn't be allowed which measures 62.0mm long.

That motor doesn't scare me in the least... it's a 2-Pole, and with that fan in there, the rotor/stator are actually shorter... Bring it...

[dethow]

That motor doesn't scare me in the least... it's a 2-Pole, and with that fan in there, the rotor/stator are actually shorter... Bring it...

I hear you... and I don't have the experience to say. That's why I backed down from my protest quickly... well that and after being verbally assaulted by another member basically telling me to shut up.
We'll see what happens this season. One of our guys has already burned one up after 4 laps of testing.