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.

[RandyatBBY]

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

It stops the I have to go you and buy the next best thing and making it a $$$ war. If like at the beginning I had a set of motors and props for each class and they lasted 6 years before being wore out and finding the current line of motors will not pull those props ever.

[T.S.Davis]

Oh and.......we're all amateurs here. None of us are getting paid to race.

[T.S.Davis]

It stops the I have to go you and buy the next best thing and making it a $$$ war. .

That's that perception thing. Guys buy stuff thinking they gotta have this, then gotta have that, no gotta have that one, over and over.

[Darin Jordan]

IThe current Idea was started by me at the 2008 NAMBA Nats in Minden CA.

Randy... we ran the P-LTD idea at the 2007 NATs in Monroe.

[Darin Jordan]

That's that perception thing. Guys buy stuff thinking they gotta have this, then gotta have that, no gotta have that one, over and over.

Much the same way that people think they HAVE to have higher KV (AQ2030) to be fast...

The "cost" thing is one of those "what if's" that simply doesn't ever really come to fruition.

[D. Newland]

I'm a little late to the party. Just chewing on the MSRP and Kv aspect of a spec. Neu 1409's will fit the current measurement spec's, but they seem to be around $185. And notice the increase in ave amp draw regarding the different windings/Kv's. There may be better motors, but this one is good enough for illustration purposes.


Neu 1409 $185

..................1.5y............2y
Kv (rpm/V) 2400...........1820
Max Power (W) 1600W 1600W
Max Amp (15sec) 100A.....75A
Max Efficiency 90% 90%
Motor Diameter 36.5mm 36.5mm
Motor Length 55mm 55mm
Motor Weight 210g 210g
Poles (Rotor/Stator) 4/12 4/12


You're easily getting into P-hydro (and P-Sport) territory with a 1409 1.5Y. Maybe not as strong as what many of us run (1415 1Y's), but we're not even breaking a sweat with a 1415 in that class...meaning a smaller version will probably do as good a job...in P.

With that said, I think this illustrates that some sort of Kv cap needs to be there.

MSRP..? Not sure about that one. If a racer loads all of his P-Ltd boats with Neu 1409's...what do the newer guys say in his club that have gone the Chinese route?


And for those taking notes. Here we are, August, 2015 and 4 of the motors are still available, and 1 of them (I'm guessing) 70% of us use. We need to discuss options, yes, but I don't see us being in any sort of emergency. We don't need to be hasty. Shoot, the quickest we can get anything to NAMBA would be the April, 2016 Propwash, which means a proposal has to pass in a district approximately January, 2016.

And, I don't even know if that is such a good idea having a proposal like this so close to a Nat's that has already been announced. I'd feel better that a P-Ltd proposal hit the Sept/Oct 2016 Propwash...but that's just me.

[RaceMechaniX]

I would also be in favor of a maximum weight limit and geometric size maximum. For every motor there is a copper/silicone/magnet ratio that work. A dense Lehner or Neu would need to step down to a smaller diameter or length to meet the mass target compared to a TP/AQ/PB motor. Yes there may be some wizard who comes up with a carbon can, full ceramic bearings and a titanium motor shaft to squeeze every gram of weight. There still is not a big advantage here compared to the magnetic group. We can also put a simple clause in saying the motor can must be aluminum or steel. Bearings and lighter shafts will make a minimal difference.

Motor mass plus basic dimensions are also very easy to tech. Kv may be a little more tricky, but is still very doable although there is a lot of room to fudge the numbers.

TG

[Darin Jordan]

We need to discuss options, yes, but I don't see us being in any sort of emergency.

Dude... if we drag this out too long, none of us will be speaking to the each other.

On a serious note, I agree, but something really should be done. I think the ball was brought back to the court with the comments from the "other" thread regarding motors "burning up" at the 2015 NATs...

With that said, I think this illustrates that some sort of Kv cap needs to be there.

The thought that started this discussion proposed a 2050KV Limit, just to get the conversation started. Still seems like a reasonable limit... 2000-ish KV.


ON a personal note... GLAD to hear from you! Hope all is well!

[Steven Vaccaro]

"Open question for Steve. Really? This is the way it is? Is this a forum for all boaters or is this a NAMBA forum."

Doug Im not going to get into this on this thread. If you would like to start a new thread in the namba area have at it.

[Doby]

Reality check time....

Interesting how lots of people worry about a Lehner (Neu...whatever high dollar motor) providing a competitive edge to the masses who can afford them...

OMG...that driver has a few more KV than me....

Anybody ever consider the reason people lose races is their lack of driving abilities?

Motors are not the be all and end all to winning races.

I'm all for supporting the current approved motors and finding suitable ones to supplement them, but when it comes down to it, boat set up and driving skills are way more important than a brand name and a few KV.

[Darin Jordan]

We can also put a simple clause in saying the motor can must be aluminum or steel.

We could do that, certainly.

I was going to suggest that we could also specify "only neodymium magnets", or something like that, but am not clear at all how one would tech such a thing.

Brushless/Sensorless/Inrunner being specified was another though. (Actually, I think I already covered the "Sensorless part")...

Trying ONLY to list those specs that really matter.

[T.S.Davis]

Dave, I don't know what anyone else has planned but my intent is for a spec to get run at some club capacity over the 2016 season and then propose something only if it's working. How to do that without pissing off club racers I'm not sure yet. I suspect what we'll need to do is have a handful running experimental motors for no points. Maybe one guy in each of our classes tinkering? IDK yet. It's a sacrifice some of us are willing to make.

[Darin Jordan]

I took a moment and starting just doing some targeted searches for motors that would fit within the dimensional and weight specs so people could get a visual of potential motors to choose from. Here is a chart that shows them:

Motor_Comparison_CHART.jpg

These are the manufacture's listed specs, in most cases, so obviously it would be up to the competitor to make sure their motor actually measured to the correct specs.

If you have additional motors that you think would fit, please post links to them or IM me with the information. I'll add them to the chart.

Helps a lot to get a good picture of exactly what the motors are that we are discussing.

NOTE: These are motors that meet the maximum of the rules. Smaller diameter, length, or lighter motors would obviously fit within the spec. Omitting smaller offerings from the list shows you just how worried I am about someone showing up with a 28mmx60mm 2050KV motor...

[Doug Smock]

Dimensions, kv, weight, poles, magnets, etc. No mention of wattage in this thread?



On another note. We have cleaned up this thread.
Any reference to the 2014 Nats was moved to that thread.
A new thread was started with the prop question.

[Darin Jordan]

No mention of wattage in this thread.

1) How does one clearly test or determine that?
2) How does one easily and accurately tech that?
3) Given a whole mess of motors that all fall under a specific set of dimensions, can the wattage really vary that much?