Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 88

Thread: Namba oval racing class changes ***

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default Namba oval racing class changes ***

    [BORED AT WORK MODE:STIRRING UP $HIT MODE=TRUE]

    NAMBA FE should be reduced to just two power levels of racing:

    Up to 4S (0.1 to 16.92V)
    Over 4S (17.0V to 42.3V)

    All Hull types still, of course.

    That would give you racing classes as follows:

    P1 - Up to 4S (0.1 to 16.92V) - ANY SINGLE MOTOR. CATS are allowed to run TWINS
    P1-Mono
    P1-Cat
    P1-Sport Hydro
    P1-Hydro
    P1-OPC
    P1-Offshore

    P2 - Over 4S (17.0V to 42.3V) - ANY SINGLE MOTOR. CATS are allowed to run TWINS

    P2-Mono
    P2-Cat
    P2-Sport Hydro
    P2-Hydro
    P2-OPC
    P2-Offshore


    In addition, you could have "specialty" classes, like 1/10th Scale Unlimited (Classic and Modern), 1/8th Scale Unlimited, TWIN HYDRO, etc.

    P-Limited, or "Spec" classes, would be club level only, rules and tech for these classes taken care of on a local club level only. And, perhaps re-evaluate Length Limits, either dropping them or opening them up slightly to give the 4S boats a little breathing room and/or to allow a larger 4S boat to put in 6S and go race in P2.

    For NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP events, only official National NAMBA CLASSES would be eligible. Host clubs, could of course, include some "Exhibition" classes, announced ahead of time.

    That's TWELVE regular classes, which would be run at a NATs in 2 or 3 Days, plus a few "Specialty Classes", and all the local racing with whatever local rules you want to run.

    Done...

    Are you seriously telling me that would NOT be enough racing for anyone out there, or that it would be somehow "not inclusive"??


    OK... there... I said it. I feel better now...




    [/BORED AT WORK MODE:STIRRING UP $HIT MODE=FALSE]
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    On
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Your just trying to work in the HV batteries. The # 0ne man rule ... if it ain't broke don't fix it .
    There I said it,

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,662

    Default

    Clearly it's broken when we need nearly a week to hold an event. To much strain on the host club (if you've never held a National event keep your fingers off the keyboard, you don't know), too much effort for many racers, too expensive in money and vacation time. It isn't supposed to be a competition to see how big of an event the Nats are, that's so juvenile. It should be about quality, not quantity. The real man rule #1 is: your unit is always bigger than the next guy's.

    You go Darin!



    .
    ERROR 403 - This is not the page you are looking for


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    8,721

    Default

    Ditto ∆∆∆∆∆
    Nortavlag Bulc

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaike5 View Post
    Your just trying to work in the HV batteries. The # 0ne man rule ... if it ain't broke don't fix it .
    There I said it,
    Ummmmm.... better think about that for a moment, then look again. Last time I checked (like 30 seconds ago), the P1 limits wouldn't allow for HV cells @4S...

    I have ALWAYS advocated for fewer more inclusive classes, ever since Lipos were introduced and performance wasn't a function directly of cell counts.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    On
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Yes Nats are a mammoth under taking. I was at the Michigan nats so I get it . A huge job and helped out as much as possible with out getting in the way of their plan. Soooooo you reduce the number of classes but increase the number of heats you have to run so that every one can play, because everyone runs the same boats they always have. Unless the nats are for a few who think there s#@% don't stink.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    Are you running a fever?
    You want to run say a 6s 36" mono against a 55" 10s mono.

    This will only delete all 6s boats and classes. P2 will be 10s.

    I've been CD for 2 Nat's and have hosted 3. All we need to do is remove classes that are uneccessary. There is no need for N1, N2, ECO or cracker box.
    Noisy person

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    That's 12 classes gone.
    Noisy person

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    How about:
    1. Get rid of the lower voltage limit for P (most current N2 power systems would be better used in P sized hulls anyway).
    2. Keep Q and T.
    3. Dump N1, N2, eco and crackerbox.

    Keeping Q and T separate has merit.
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Oh, allow any number of motors and keep the length limits as they are.
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    N1. N2. Spec. And S. Leaves P. Q. and T. Done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    No way smaller 6 s boats could compete against bigger hulls..especially in rough water.. I agree with getting rid of n1 n2 and s.. Though basically s/t can be combined.. I also think getting rid of offshore is s great idea.. Or at least change it to a 6 lap with different courses than what we have now for legal

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raptor347 View Post
    How about:
    1. Get rid of the lower voltage limit for P (most current N2 power systems would be better used in P sized hulls anyway).
    2. Keep Q and T.
    3. Dump N1, N2, eco and crackerbox.

    Keeping Q and T separate has merit.
    Sounds reasonable... I'm convinced.

    So, basically: "up to P", Q, and Open (10S Max), all with existing length restrictions.

    A place for everyone to race, and more than enough classes to fill up at least 3-Days of National Championship competition.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    Then make the motor change for "limited" to 36x61? For a softer gentler version of P? Still fast enough to be fun but not 70 mph sport fast.

    The lower voltage limit for P going away opens it up for guys that want to run 3s. No place for them now.

    Get rid of the 1 cell classes too.

    I would vote for all of that.

    BTW, just because a class gets dumped from the rule book doesn't mean a club can't run it. The NAMBA brass always argues with me about running the class rules to be insured despite there being no text to that effect. The way around it is simply fitting boats into another power spec. A club that likes cracker-box is basically running P limited mono with additional club restrictions. The brass would have no issue with that.

    Been thinking about the whole "try it for a year thing" too. When we adopted lithium polymer cells there was no club in the United States that was trial running every class in the book on lithium. So lithium was not test run for a year prior to proposal. A few classes in a few club was all that could be done. In fact looking back on it, if the brass had realized what were doing we likely would have been shut down. We may never have gotten lithium through the works. The same was true when brushless motors were included. There wasn't proof of concept in every class at every power level when that was proposed either. That change was massive too. Talk about hand wringing. Guys were birthing cows on that one.

    Pointing being, there is precedence for making massive rule changes without first proving the concept.
    Noisy person

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Get rid of the 1 cell classes too.
    Hey... watch it!

    Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

    NO need to get crazy here.

    And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    I'm going to implement the p lite motor thing this new year here in az .. We really don't have a big enough course for t yet.. But soon.. I'm not in favor of combining all the classes.. Just no way a smaller say q or p can compete in the waves created by a t boat

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    Hey... watch it!

    Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

    NO need to get crazy here.

    And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.
    Sadly there are guys that will read that as yet another conspiracy theory.
    Noisy person

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Sadly there are guys that will read that as yet another conspiracy theory.
    Whatever... all guys who don't show up in the first place, so they don't really know what they are referring too... SAW isn't "broke"... Oval, well, sort of is...
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayzerdesigns View Post
    I'm going to implement the p lite motor thing this new year here in az ..
    I'm going to propose we implement it here in Washington next year as well. Some of the club I've talked to seems to be on board to try it.

    Sweet deal is that it ELIMINATES NOTHING... just opens up the motor allowances to other similarly sized motors.

    These are the drafts I put together to present to our club. Only two sections that need revision. This only addresses P-Limited. 1/10th Scale is going to have to deal with their motor rules separately.

    Again, PLEASE NOTE: this is ONLY FOR OUR LOCAL CLUB, and ONLY a PROPOSAL for them, at the moment. The membership of our club has yet to vote/decide, or even really discuss this yet. That will happen in November/December at our Winter meeting. So, please just relax. Has nothing to do with NATIONAL rules...

    P_LTD_MOTOR_PROPOSAL_DRAFT_01.jpg P_LTD_MOTOR_PROPOSAL_DRAFT_02.jpg
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    Hey... watch it!

    Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

    NO need to get crazy here.

    And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    Not saying we do or don't but does there need to be a dollar MSRP cap on this? I don't have a feel either way but is there a risk of someone going all Lehner at the club levels? I'm not sure there's a real advantage to doing that. There are so many great cheap options right now it's almost giggle worthy. Leopard, TP, HET, Turnigy all on the cheap.

    Some of us talked about it informally after our race Sunday. I haven't found anyone saying they thought it was a bad idea. Not sure what to make of it. Maybe we're headed down the right path.

    Brings me to my earlier observation.....let's not wait. What we have is working (limited) but I think we all want to open the flood gates to more options. Why are we clinging to this old school notion that we have to prove the concept for a year? I read it again........it ain't in the book. That "one year proof" thing isn't in there. It's been perpetuated by dinosaurs (myself included) when it's simply not in there.

    It's not like we're deleting anyone's gear or making them run out for new stuff over night. We'll also no longer be catering to any particular manufacturer which was a major sticking point for some way back when Dave wrote it and I proposed it.

    If we could make this fly I would be willing to bet its finally a spec that IMPBA could get behind too. Easy to tech and wold hold up for years. If we could get it on the books for both orgs it would get us all on a similar page. More of us doing the same things makes for more potential racers regardless of geography. More goodder....ness.

    Am I being too optimistic?

    For ovals and offshore

    Get rid of N1,N2, cracker, ECO
    Get rid of the min voltage for P
    Make T 7s+
    Change the limited spec to just motor size

    Done?
    Noisy person

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Not saying we do or don't but does there need to be a dollar MSRP cap on this?
    Simple Question: CAN IT BE TECH'D??

    ANSWER: NOPE....

    Problem addressed and solved.

    Seriously, if someone thinks they need to spend $300.00 to compete in a LTD class, then let them have at it... won't change the balance of competition...
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,030

    Default

    cheap vs. expensive.... You guys don't think manufacturing quality and tolerances will come into play? Isn't/wasn't that one of the major complaints that got us to this point?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,797

    Default

    There were a number of complaints. In no particular order:
    No choices
    Poor quality/inconsistent quality
    Catering to two manufacturers (conspiracy theorists)
    "We weren't consulted"
    My favorite "the rules were written to protect certain racers"

    With the quality and tolerance potential this would be different in that if a manufacturers quality slipped we as racers can choose something else. The old way, if a motor batch was off say 5% resulting in failures we had few options. We ordered more motors that couldn't run the setups they were replacing.

    I think Mike's point is that quality gets better as you lay out more cash. This is an undeniable truth. Is it a big enough truth to muddy the water? IDK
    Noisy person

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    With the quality and tolerance potential this would be different in that if a manufacturers quality slipped we as racers can choose something else. The old way, if a motor batch was off say 5% resulting in failures we had few options. We ordered more motors that couldn't run the setups they were replacing.
    I understand you point, that scenario wasn't immediately in the forefront of my brain but it makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    I think Mike's point is that quality gets better as you lay out more cash. This is an undeniable truth. Is it a big enough truth to muddy the water? IDK
    I guess I am not sold that a $300 motor is going to perform "the same" as a $80 motor. I don't think the performance difference will be large, but it will be there. In the right hands/boat it can skew the perception that a Leopard can keep up with a Lehner. Perception is what I am trying to protect, for the new boaters; i guess. Rules/Classes that help get new racers involved is my motivation.

    Performance in these classes are SO close already, that any improvement in the right hands is going to upset the apple cart. It's inevitable, i guess.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    1) CAN IT BE TECH'D??

    2) Nobody is worrying about the cost of motors in ANY OTHER CLASS...

    3) Are we trying to limit cost, or performance? JUST like the other classes, there is going to be a balance point that is reached.

    4) The physical size limitations will ultimately determine the power available.

    5) CAN IT BE TECH'D??
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    1 & 5...you're repeating yourself.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doby View Post
    1 & 5...you're repeating yourself.
    PRECISELY!
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    Go Tech yourself!!!!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,030

    Default

    Then i am still confused what the INTENT is... The "goal" of reconfiguring P-Limited the class still escapes me. I think we all know how we got here, but I am not sure everyone agrees where we are going.


    There's been too many iterations of these discussions; Does this new 36X61 motor have a KV restriction?

    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"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •