Namba Voting for Modification and Additions for Electric 1/8 Scale Unlimited Hydro"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.S.Davis

I believe Bob drags in some of the old cells for the NW guys. There will come a time where he can't get them though. When the cells aren't available any more I guess they'll stop running the class.

There ya go Mike. Just buy a bunch of labels from who ever printed the old labels. There is no requirement that they actually have to be 65c cells. They just need a label that says 65c. Nobody that actually wrote that rule has any idea how to prove that a cell is actually 65c. Heck, I don't and I've been doing this for eons.

Anything that can't be verified on site through a technical inspection can't be a rule. This is the same way that we blew it when we proposed limited all those years ago. We were ignorant. As is this new rule set. Limited floated for a long time because we were ALL ignorant. Ignorance was bliss.

Ken, we never had the numbers to make it work but if years ago we had gone with a "vintage" class on 8s and a "modern" class on 10s it might have made sense. Hind sight.

I mentioned this somewhere else. The real hydros started off shovel nose, round nose, maybe a chisel on piston power. There were other types before but for most of RC that's what what we think of. Those early boats were only capable of running X mph. The boats evolved and the modern turbine boat runs 1.5X mph.....ish. When we try to emulate these real life boats with scale versions we make the power available to a modern boat equal to the power available to an old style shovel nose. We know the shovel was never designed for the speeds of a turbine. Otherwise they would still be racing them......only with turbines under the hood.

---

The C rating as been concern of mine. I get the C rating technically is joke.

I get the whole shovel nose vs turbine.

Hey Terry, from experience the older style "model" boats actually run better than the wing turbine boats. I've had 2 turbine boats that ran like crap, All 4 of my no wing boats all run better tha the turbine wing boats I had

Certainly not bashing NAMBA or the author of the proposal as he followed the rules but... Unless someone proposes a rewrite of section seven in the rulebook, the same group that just turned Scale on it's head could have you running some sort of current limiter etc. by this time next year. (I say "you" because unless I decide to run two NAMBA races the same year I doubt I'll be a NAMBA member again.)

http://namba.com/content/library/rul...a_rulebook.pdf
A club runs a rule for a year, the district votes on it, it goes to the BOD that checks for grammar and conflicts basically. Then it goes to the membership for a vote? Why wouldn't you want your elected officials to vote on proposals? Including your Chairmen.
Why wouldn't you want your BOD to have a choice or choices on what to do with proposals? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if the NAMBA DDs and FE Chairman had a vote on racing rules, this one wouldn't have seen the light of day.

If interested check out Article 8 for ideas. While it may not be perfect it does give the BOD some teeth to do what it deems right for the organization AND it's membership. https://nebula.wsimg.com/6d8054fd8fc...&alloworigin=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madmikepags

Hey Terry, from experience the older style "model" boats actually run better than the wing turbine boats. I've had 2 turbine boats that ran like crap, All 4 of my no wing boats all run better tha the turbine wing boats I had

---

Exactly Mike. You're actually making my point. The power level is equal so the boat with the least amount of baggage will be the fastest. Those early pickles like your Coors boat ran piston power too. So maybe 1500 practical hp.....or so. A modern turbine is in the 3000 hp range. Throw half the power into a full scale turbine hull and it likely will be slow.......er. Tail feathers, foot peddled front canard wings, all that kind of rot were added to modern boats to handle the power and keep them on the water at the higher speeds. But model boats?.................one power level for all! Are we trying to emulate the real thing or aren't we? Ever seen the Slo-Mo-Shun race against the 2016 Oh Boy Oberto in real life? Proly not.

Doug, when I was one of those elected officials it was shocking to me how hard it was to get the BOD to engage. There were a number of times important issues needed to be addressed and............. nutt'n. Crickets. Some guys were on it. The usual suspects but a number of others just had no input. Russ was the president then. Had to have been absolutely maddening for him. Hopefully it was a just a cycle of disinterested DD's. I'm sure there has been turn over since then but I'm out of that loop.

This business of comparing our 1/8 scale model boats to their full sized counterparts is completely ridiculous and shouldn't be part of this conversation at all. Actually, it's borderline comical! I don't follow the full sized boats as closely as I used to, but THEY HAVE LIMITS! They have a fuel flow restriction rule for the turbine powered boats. Do you REALLY think the current U-3 (Allison powered boat) could keep up with an UN-RESTRICTED turbine powered boat?

I will again state that I don't agree with the new NAMBA rule as written, but I understand what they are trying to do. However, it was just poorly implemented.

The class needs to have a reasonable control/range of available power regardless of power source. For the Nitro and Gas folks that is much easier than the FE crowd.

Thanks for pulling this back down to reality, but poorly implemented , that is a gross under statement with the *!***!***!***!** storm this has created. I mean bypassing the FE director...... really! Smooth though Mike, that's why your Sir Mike, very diplomatic and level headed.
Cheers, Jay.

Of course not Mike. Again, exactly my point.

In model boating where "scale" is everything we ignore thE reality that the boats evolved. That's what's commical. Sure the turbines have flow restrictions. That limit takes the modern day turbine to a place the old Slo MO had no hope of getting to. But on race day with RC.....equals. Same power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.S.Davis

Of course not Mike. Again, exactly my point.

In model boating where "scale" is everything we ignore thE reality that the boats evolved. That's what's commical. Sure the turbines have flow restrictions. That limit takes the modern day turbine to a place the old Slo MO had no hope of getting to. But on race day with RC.....equals. Same power.

---

So based on your theory the Nitro guys should be allowed to run .67, .80, .90, or 1.01 motors? AND the 1/6 Scale GAS guys should be able to run what.... 80cc 2 stroke dirt bike motors? Where does it end?

How are you going to Tech ANY of this?

Rhetorical Question. Having been round and round with P-LTD rules, which still don't have a workable/viable solution, I already know the answer.

What a nightmare...

we had a limit, it was 10s. all of my boats I could overpower with a neu 2230 or a 3080 lehner. But its not about the power it's about efficiency and not stressing the equipment. You don't think I could blow up all my components with new rules? I could do it easier, look at my info on my post about 10s setup vs 8s setup. Anyone see my hamms bear run in Ga? it was ok , not crazy fast, I f I went any faster I would have burned stuff up. I could never run that boat on their 8s rules. it weighs 21 lbs and prob only 20 with 8s. There isn't enough power to run on 8s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longballlumber

So based on your theory the Nitro guys should be allowed to run .67, .80, .90, or 1.01 motors? AND the 1/6 Scale GAS guys should be able to run what.... 80cc 2 stroke dirt bike motors? Where does it end?

---

Ugh. Mike, I've accepted that the structure spelled out by the pioneers can't be. NAMBA had open motor rules for 12 years. Did anyone push a scale heat boat into the 100s? The tech was available. Why didn't it happen? The boats can't go there. That's where it did and should have ended. Reality was a pretty good limit for 12 years.

That will never happen in IMPBA. Not ever. I got it. The notion in fact pisses people off.

What I'm trying to convey is that the "limit"....what ever it is........will be/has been applied to every scale boat from every era. So let's say the limit is some how sensible to power a T6 to a scale....ish speed. Enough power to make it look right what ever that means. Now throw the exact same power into the Slo MO that was never ever intended to compete with a T6. Or vice versa. Pick the power to make the SloMo look sensible at speed. Now throw that power into a T6. One of those boats has the wrong power to achieve that all impotant scale......ish speed.

Nitro has the same issue. Same power plant for all. Throw the SloMo, an 8255, and T6 out there together. Not everyone but some guys want super exact scale replicas. Scale scale scale. "Thats the wrong paint code".....but once it goes in water........nobody cares about the "look" anymore. The SloMo never raced a T6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.S.Davis

Ugh. Mike, I've accepted that the structure spelled out by the pioneers can't be. NAMBA had open motor rules for 12 years. Did anyone push a scale heat boat into the 100s? The tech was available. Why didn't it happen? The boats can't go there. That's where it did and should have ended. Reality was a pretty good limit for 12 years.

That will never happen in IMPBA. Not ever. I got it. The notion in fact pisses people off.

What I'm trying to convey is that the "limit"....what ever it is........will be/has been applied to every scale boat from every era. So let's say the limit is some how sensible to power a T6 to a scale....ish speed. Enough power to make it look right what ever that means. Now throw the exact same power into the Slo MO that was never ever intended to compete with a T6. Or vice versa. Pick the power to make the SloMo look sensible at speed. Now throw that power into a T6. One of those boats has the wrong power to achieve that all impotant scale......ish speed.

Nitro has the same issue. Same power plant for all. Throw the SloMo, an 8255, and T6 out there together. Not everyone but some guys want super exact scale replicas. Scale scale scale. "Thats the wrong paint code".....but once it goes in water........nobody cares about the "look" anymore. The SloMo never raced a T6.

---

gotcha Terry.... You win the internet battle.

Well, I guess this about sums it up. From the I-Waters discussion of the same... I guess if you don't tech, it doesn't matter then...

Attachment 159379

:popcorn2:

I want to pet that " Magic Unicorn".:laugh:. It's a shame that very few lights are coming on @ IW.��

Speaking of IW. Can someone on the site let an admin know that reCAPTCHA system is down and needs updating. This is the system that requires you to answers questions to verify you are a human being and not a machine. Until it is updated no new people can sign up and those who have forgotten their password can not recover it. I sent them an email from outside the system but it was never acted upon. A similar thing happened here at OSE awhile back, but Steve fixed it right away.

I truly feel badly for all the NAMBA FE guys that got hosed by that BS rule, my only suggestion would be to as soon as possible submit a new set of rules for 1/8th scale FE. With that being said I have been doing a lot of research in regards to updating the IMPBA 1/8 FE scale rules to increase our motor options and after building and racing a few of them along with conversations with other FE guys I think a simple "can" limit will do well. Easy to tech in the field and a motor will only produce a certain amount of watts based on it's size, limit the can and you limit wattage potential. Here is a post I made in that regard on I/W-

I would probably guess that when the rules were written then those were what was available. I have been on this for a bit and agree limiting motor can diameter and length might be the best option for the IMPBA in opening up motor choices. With FE the math is simple- volts x amps = watts = horsepower and you have 2 choices to get there- more volts and less amps or more amps and less volts. Higher amperage is more heat and heat is the killer of electronics, the 9 & 10S scales I've done run well below max temps that I'd want to see. With the ones I've built or helped build I found we need roughly between 2100-2500 watts to adequately power a heavier FE 1/8 scale reliably in the 55-65mph range. I think by limiting the can size we should be able to keep a decent lid on the wattage potential. Since the Lehner 22 series run 44mm diameter, are numerous and already legal we should probably consider a max diameter of 45mm. As for length a Lehner 2280 with optional fan is 120mm and currently legal so we need to be around that as well. As for Plettenberg I found a series called Dinator and at a 45mm diameter with smooth can looks viable but the Plett HP 370BM/50 A1 S which appears to be the motor Mike referenced is problematic with it's size. How many are actually out there currently in use? If it's just one or two then it might need to become a sacrificial lamb for the sake of growing the overall motor options. All of the current 40mm 15 series Neus will fit in this 120mm x 45mm range as will the Leopard, TP and SSS motors. That right there opens things up to more options and lower cost as well and if anyone knows of other brands that would fit within this range please feel free to chime in.

I honestly feel that a 56mm diameter motor has no business in an 1/8th scale FE because of the wattage potential. After the above post I found a few other motors that would fit into those can guidelines. Again simple and easy to tech "in the field".

delete - double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Smock

I want to pet that " Magic Unicorn".:laugh:. It's a shame that very few lights are coming on @ IW.��

---

Man, I live near Portland OR. I'm scared of magic unicorns! They're mean out here! :noidea:

Don,
Don't forget the HET typhoons, there's a 1527 equivalent in that line as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darin Jordan

Well, I guess this about sums it up. From the I-Waters discussion of the same... I guess if you don't tech, it doesn't matter then...

Attachment 159379

---

Ah, the good old days! Don't ask, don't tell! The ignorance is strong with this one.

Sorry about all the posts guys. I just need to hang out with some people who still like me.

They put you in a bad place Brian. Sorry about that. I hope they give you the tools to attempt to fix it. Didn't know that about the Magic Unicorns...lol

I know this is the NAMBA thread, but I think there is enough relevance to share. I started this when the IMPBA discussion was hot and heavy. No magic here, just a collection of information that is formatted in a way to compare easily. I am struggling to find any others that fit in the general size of 45mm diameter and 111(ish)mm length.

Hi Mike:

Is IMPBA looking to expand the motor options?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Smock

Didn't know that about the Magic Unicorns...lol

---

OMG!! I thought Brian was just joking, but I'll be damned if there isn't actually a FACEBOOK page regarding this! :blink:

Attachment 159398

https://www.facebook.com/Portland-wa...-328323299281/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doby

Hi Mike:

Is IMPBA looking to expand the motor options?

---

I guess you could say we are collecting information/data regarding the 1/8 class. There have been others that have suggested there needs to be some more cost effective alternatives. Given the current situation with NAMBA I thought this was some helpful info. Feel free to move, delete, or use as necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darin Jordan

OMG!! I thought Brian was just joking, but I'll be damned if there isn't actually a FACEBOOK page regarding this! :blink:

Attachment 159398

https://www.facebook.com/Portland-wa...-328323299281/

---

Who knew? Well except Brian.. lol. Good work Mike! Thank you sir!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longballlumber

I know this is the NAMBA thread, but I think there is enough relevance to share. I started this when the IMPBA discussion was hot and heavy. No magic here, just a collection of information that is formatted in a way to compare easily. I am struggling to find any others that fit in the general size of 45mm diameter and 111(ish)mm length.

---

The SSS line has motors fitting the suggested 120mm x 45mm range limits also. Even with just these we've more than doubled the choices with lower cost options as well. And Mike is right, we might want to move this part of discussion over the IMPBA page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don ferrette

delete - double post

---

Let me propose that NAMBA should not change the existing FE 1/8 Scale rules, but establish two classes. “Unlimited FE 1/8 Scale” under the rules as they have always been, and “Limited FE 1/8 Scale” under the revised rules. I know that NAMBA doesn’t really need another class, but having these two classes could give everyone what they want.

Jim,
I've been looking at that as an option, it's not a bad one. It actually makes some sense, it would give the boats built under the new rule two places to play. I've got lots going on offline with this. I'm doing what I can. There's certainly precedent for it.

Hey Newland! Do you want your job back?