Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 88 of 88

Thread: Namba oval racing class changes ***

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    My point is....................we're not looking to run IROC here. We're not looking for equality. Only a power limitation. There's only so much power you can scrape from a 36x61 in runner.
    Well said...
    Words "spec" and/or "iroc" need to be left out of this conversation. "Limited" is what we're looking for and a size limit on the motor does limit the class.

    I don't follow NASCAR much, but from what I know... isn't there a limit on square inches for their engines? Different types but can't exceed a certain size.
    And I actually don't follow real boat racing either... but are there not classes that have limits to engine sizes? I bet they don't say you can only run a small block Chevy.

    Just sayin...
    Have fun with that....

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    The goal of changing the "limit" would be:

    Retain existing racers
    Making it easier for a new racer to join in
    limit power

    As for actually attracting brand new racers...............nothing has worked better than limited since I've been racing. Buying something that is race-able right out of the box was the key IMO. That said, this is less complex than what we had. Even easier to find a boat that fits right in out of the box. Will that bring new guys? Is it right? I have no idea. What we have now though can't be sustained.
    I vote Terry Davis for NAMBA FE Director... The heck with Brian...

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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    I vote Terry Davis for NAMBA FE Director...
    Weeny. You're off my Christmas list.
    Noisy person

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Just thought of a side effect.

    Although not necessarily a "goal" for a limit revision, the change would make it easier for brand new players in the boat market to comply with the rules. Companies like Promarine, Venom or even Atomik could simply bust out their calipers and figure out if their boats are legal. None of this "get it tested and approved by this guy, that group, those dip.....its from MI". None of that rot.

    So in theory, more out of the box legal boats. Competitive boats? Who knows.
    Noisy person

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default I know Nothing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQv-gZxaT40


    Last weekend we had our SCSTA/Nitro/FE race. Classes qualified : P-Ltd Sport Hydro, P-Ltd Cat, P-Ltd OPC, 1/10 Scale , 1/8 Scale.

    100_0161.jpg

    It was the usual SoCal warm & fuzzy lovefest.

    Oddly enough there was NO discussion heard resounding in the pits regarding changing any motor requirements. Seen were : AQ 2030's, AQ 1800's, PB 1500's & [ call the Tech Police ] PB 2000 KV. FWIW last race a bone stock newly purchased PB BJ 29 showed up with the daringly defiant 6-pole 2000KV motor for a new entrant (one who BTW took High Points in last year's year-long three-state P-Mono series so she was an experienced racer. (No arrest was made) .The boat was so slow it needed a calendar to judge its speed. Then, for whatever reason and in a daring departure from reality/legality I also tried the PB 2000KV in my P-Ltd Cat. To avoid arrest and incarceration I dressed as a large Honey Bear. It was a slug & I changed it out for a AQ1800. Took 2nd overall. (Love those Starbucks gift cards/Jitters.)

    If there's a point to be made I'll say this : Given that this year SoCal FE is FIVE members down (geographics & the big C), and two locals are recovering from surgery or pre-marriage extravaganzas, the current crop of gas/nitro racers are crossing over and saving the FE class ranks. AND THEY JUST WANT TO BUY A BOX STOCK RIG and not mess with changing motors for the powerplant- de jour. What's winning are bone stockers with nice props AND premium batteries (and years of making good starts and knowing how to stay in lane one.)

    To rebuild racer ranks my take is that unmolested store-bought rigs are the only entryway path to re-populate the classes. Given that (with the exception of the NAMBA 2-Lap and SAW events) there's no big emphasis here in the land of fruits & nuts on which motor is/is not "Legal" . Winning is secondary to just hanging out with what can be described as a big family get-together. OK, I'll concede that this is likely not be typical of club racing elsewhere. We've possibly O.D 'd on too much surf music & pink tofu. Whatever.

    "As for actually attracting brand new racers...............nothing has worked better than limited since I've been racing. "

    Yessir

    D19 Outlaw Sunday002.jpg
    Last edited by properchopper; 08-03-2016 at 01:56 PM.
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Number one rule of racing.......have fun. Pisses some people off when I say that but if I stop having fun I'm out.

    Tony, this change would basically be what you guys are doing. We allow the 2000kv Blackjack motor too btw. Nobody cares. Maybe they would if they were stomping the crap out of everyone though.

    Making it as easy as possible while still limiting the nut jobs (me again ) might bolster our ranks.
    Noisy person

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Darin,
    Do you know what the constant amp rating on the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv motor?

    This isn't listing in any info I can find on this motor:
    http://www.proboatmodels.com/Product...rodID=DYNM3910

    But it is a factor into being an allowable motor per NAMBA CD discretion rule. Must not exceed 5% difference from other allowable motors. Aquacrafts are rated at 50 amp constant.
    Have fun with that....

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    We allow the 2000kv Blackjack motor too btw. Nobody cares. Maybe they would if they were stomping the crap out of everyone though.
    Jeff B is the only one I'm aware of using this motor in his boats that are not Blackjacks or Geicos.
    He started using a couple of these race # 2 this season.
    Weird thing is that Jeff has been winning more lately... just sayin'

    Maybe he's getting better
    Have fun with that....

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Tony makes my point perfectly above... LOCAL CLUBs can do WHATEVER the heck they want to attract racers in their arena. They already are.

    But, you can NOT have a class, Nationally, or "records eligible", that operates under these loose rules. THAT part is really what this discussion revolves around.

    A local, "Run-What-You-Brung", or stock RTR, or whatever class, is EXACTLY what the clubs should be doing.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    Darin,
    Do you know what the constant amp rating on the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv motor?
    I really don't know. These numbers are all just made-up anyhow. The only way to know for sure is to push one until it blows.

    From my bench testing, the 2000KV Dynamite motor is down on power, and gets hotter, at 100A, compared to the others. Wouldn't be my first choice in an application that needs some torque.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Moose has the stock motor in his Blackjack I believe.
    Noisy person

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    "From my bench testing, the 2000KV Dynamite motor is down on power, and gets hotter, at 100A, compared to the others. Wouldn't be my first choice in an application that needs some torque. "


    In my MC with an AQ1800/Oct M445 the motor is usually @ 135 deg. F as soon as I yank tape. Sunday the PB2000 came in (same boat/prop/last place finish) at 165 deg. F. Golly
    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

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    In my MC with an AQ1800/Oct M445 the motor is usually @ 135 deg. F as soon as I yank tape. Sunday the PB2000 came in (same boat/prop/last place finish) at 165 deg. F. Golly
    Yeah... but that's an 1800kv motor up against a 2000kv motor with the same prop. Using an AQ2030 compared to the PB2000 would be a better comparison. Would it not?
    Have fun with that....

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    I really don't know. These numbers are all just made-up anyhow.
    Understood... that's what I figured.
    Which is why I question why this (constant amp ratings) is a factor mentioned in the NAMBA rules under CD discretion for usable motors.

    And in which case...(the PB2000) if allowed in an event, it could easily be viewed as illegal because it's not in the list and there is no documentation of its constant amp rating as required by the CD discretion rule.

    So its official... V3 Blackjack and Geico are NOT legal and the only legal out of box boats are Aquacrafts. Something is wrong there and it needs to be changed sooner than later.
    Have fun with that....

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    Yeah... but that's an 1800kv motor up against a 2000kv motor with the same prop. Using an AQ2030 compared to the PB2000 would be a better comparison. Would it not?
    Here... this will clearly show what Tony is referring too. Both motors, loaded to ~100A@4S for 60-seconds. Look at the Loaded KV, the KV-Loss under load, and especially the Delta Temperature (temp gain after 60-seconds). Clearly, the DYNM2000 is inferior, regardless of prop.

    NOTE: By loading them all to 100A on the same 4S Lipo, it means they are all being tested at the same power output. Much more accurate than "which prop did I use"...


    AQ1800_vs_DYMN2000.jpg
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    A local, "Run-What-You-Brung", or stock RTR, or whatever class, is EXACTLY what the clubs should be doing.
    Terry Davis...
    I propose that MMEU moves away from Spec SV27 and starts a "P-Lite Offshore" class which allows monos and cats with any motor under 36x61mm.
    This would be a great class to bring new guys into without throwing them straight into a high traffic sprint. Besides... there are some I've heard who run P-Limited boats in Open P Offshore due to little extra speed benefits in that class. Simply put... Fast flips. This may actually be an avenue to setup a perfect Open P Offshore boat.
    If we get a lot of guys doing it then we consider adding sprint classes as well.

    I'd propose switching all together, but we have to keep the limited classes within the current NAMBA rules so that those going to Nats or other out of area events have setup/ready and proven boats to race.
    Have fun with that....

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    Here... this will clearly show what Tony is referring too. Both motors, loaded to ~100A@4S for 60-seconds. Look at the Loaded KV, the KV-Loss under load, and especially the Delta Temperature (temp gain after 60-seconds). Clearly, the DYNM2000 is inferior, regardless of prop.

    NOTE: By loading them all to 100A on the same 4S Lipo, it means they are all being tested at the same power output. Much more accurate than "which prop did I use"...
    Nice graph... explains many things. I don't actually think the PB2000 is a better motor. Nor do I even care.

    But I do have a problem with it being allowed into events when its not allowed within the rules. It's being allowed because whoever bought a brand new V3 ProBoat and it's close enough. Well, a TFL Pursuit or Popeye with an SSS 3660 motor is just as close to legal as a V3 ProBoat but they will not be allowed.

    Yes, I understand local clubs can do what they want. And they should.
    But what I'm only trying to point out and have acknowledged is that there is a massive fundamental problem in the current rules. A problem which has reduced the amount of RTR legal boats by half and from what was two manufactures to now only one. And that one legal manufacture hasn't been doing much for new development and thus are producing less appealing boats compared to those that are similar in size and cost that no longer fit the rules.

    It simply needs to be pointed out that the motor rules need to change sooner than later. Yes, us with our existing boats don't have an issue... yet. But the rules are hurting new comers and pushing them away.
    And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
    Last edited by dethow; 08-04-2016 at 03:13 PM.
    Have fun with that....

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Dave, I'm with you on the timing but I would go even further. Finish out the season with what we have and propose it full on across the classes. Re-write the limit to 36x61 and move on right or wrong. It's clearly broken the way we're doing it so a solution must be proposed. It wont be perfect. Some will be pissed. I hope though that most will see why it has to happen.

    On the Bj and Geico motors.....when they first started showing up at the pond some of us knew they were less motor than we were already running. That's the only reason we asked our club to just allowing them. If I thought they were going to upset the apple cart I would never have suggested it. I wish I had NOT suggested it in hind sight. Couple reasons:

    One, the motor sucks. Sorry PB it just does. So guys are trying to compete with a setup we know isn't going to keep up. Sure there are exceptions but the likelihood that a brand new guy is going to show up with less power and stomp a mud hole in our behinds is low.

    Two, we may have been forced to address this sooner.

    What were doing right now absolutely is going to fail. We just don't know when.

    My thinking is that we go into 2017 with a new limitation. If it fails it fails. I honestly don't think it will though.
    Noisy person

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Dave, I'm with you on the timing but I would go even further. Finish out the season with what we have and propose it full on across the classes. Re-write the limit to 36x61 and move on right or wrong. It's clearly broken the way we're doing it so a solution must be proposed. It wont be perfect. Some will be pissed. I hope though that most will see why it has to happen.
    Are you talking about proposing "it full on across the classes" for all NAMBA? Or are you just talking about our MMEU club?

    If you think it can happen within NAMBA... great I'm onboard.
    But if you are NOT talking about NAMBA and just talking MMEU... how can we really do that? Mostly You, Tyler, and Tom will suffer if you use one motor for club races than have to go back to NAMBA limited for your travels. And what about MI Cup? How do we deal with guys coming from out of town that don't want to race their AQs and PBs against TPs?

    All I'm saying is that if it can't happen that fast for NAMBA rules, then why don't we (MMEU) make this single new class, "P-Lite Offshore"? Or "MMEU Offshore"... or whatever we name it. Maybe "Size Matters"... LOL (That's for you Mike Ball).

    I don't care about the PB2000 motors. I was only making the point that per the letter of the NAMBA rules... those RTR boats are not allowed. That fact just furthers the need for rule changes... NOW
    Last edited by dethow; 08-04-2016 at 10:36 PM.
    Have fun with that....

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    36.3mm x 61.2mm

    You can't spec 36x61 or none will measure up, including the present motors.

    Trust me, I've measured them...
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    No I want to change the limit in the NAMBA book for everyone starting 2017. Yes it can happen. It will take some effort and some explanation to go out with the proposal but I'm up for it. Some of the discussion here will likely show up in that explanatory dialog.

    The fact that there has been so little opposition thus far is a pretty good indication that people aren't that outraged by the idea. Skepticism sure. People asking "what about this, that, the other" but none of the typical lunacy we get with something like this.

    I follow on the PB thing too. One could easily argue that we should allow the TFL because it's an RTR, that we should allow the Promarine because it's an RTR. Then it's......why did we let PB in the door? Why not boat X,Y,Z? Yadaydayada. Is that cheese I smell?

    Broke. Gotta do something.

    .......... or we let "limited" just die on it's vine and go back to the original power table. Not sure that's the best route either.
    Noisy person

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    36.3mm x 61.2mm

    You can't spec 36x61 or none will measure up, including the present motors.

    Trust me, I've measured them...
    Understood Darin... we are just simplifying to conversation. But yes... the dims you provided are what needs to be proposed.
    Have fun with that....

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    One could easily argue that we should allow the TFL because it's an RTR, that we should allow the Promarine because it's an RTR. Then it's......why did we let PB in the door? Why not boat X,Y,Z? Yadaydayada. Is that cheese I smell?
    TFLs are ARTR (no servo or radio). At least as sold by our USA TFL dealer, the one and only... Offshore Electrics. Which why no servo guys???

    and Promarine comes with 3674 motors (too big).

    So not really an easy argument...
    Have fun with that....

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    TFLs are ARTR (no servo or radio). At least as sold by our USA TFL dealer, the one and only... Offshore Electrics. Which why no servo guys???

    and Promarine comes with 3674 motors (too big).

    So not really an easy argument...
    I think that there is NO reasonable NATIONAL level answer to including just ANY RTR in a specific class. My take would be that the local clubs can handle this however they want. In the case of the Pursuit vs. the PMRC boats, I think the Pursuit has a legal sized motor, and the PMRC doesn't... Easy to work. If the driver is capable, he can race the PMRC boat in the standard P-Class, or the club can provide a "Run-Whatcha-Brung" class, just to give "newbies" the opportunity to race. If they get hooked, they can then work to comply with the existing rules.

    On a NATIONAL level, there is no real valid reason to include any kind of "RTR" class. Just doesn't make sense.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    I think that there is NO reasonable NATIONAL level answer to including just ANY RTR in a specific class. My take would be that the local clubs can handle this however they want. In the case of the Pursuit vs. the PMRC boats, I think the Pursuit has a legal sized motor, and the PMRC doesn't... Easy to work. If the driver is capable, he can race the PMRC boat in the standard P-Class, or the club can provide a "Run-Whatcha-Brung" class, just to give "newbies" the opportunity to race. If they get hooked, they can then work to comply with the existing rules.

    On a NATIONAL level, there is no real valid reason to include any kind of "RTR" class. Just doesn't make sense.
    Have fun with that....

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    HOLY CRAP??? WHAT JUST HAPPENED??!!!
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    HOLY CRAP??? WHAT JUST HAPPENED??!!!
    WHAT!!!???
    There's nothing you said there that is in dispute of any existing rules or where the rules will be if we change to the 36.3mm x 61.2mm size rule.
    I've never said all RTR should be included or able to run in limited on a national level. All boats need to run within the class they fit.

    All I've been saying is that the current rules are excluding a lot of RTR or ARTR boats that should be allowed. Such as the Pursuit, Popeye, V3 Blackjack and V3 Geico. PMRC 3674 motor is too big, but maybe they will offer an option for a 3660 motor if the NAMBA rule changes.

    We're all good Darin... You may not realize it but I've been on your side this whole time.
    Well not the whole time. There was a time MANY MANY months ago I was pushing for ridiculous 40mm motor options. I gave that up a long time ago thou and agree with every point made on that subject.

    I just want to move forward and get this rule changed so I can stop buying AQs. As I said... I just burned up 3 at last MMEU race. I usually keep backups, but I don't want to buy anymore. I will run what I have until this rule is changed. I'm done with AQs. But I have bought a few PB1500s. Just haven't had a chance to setup a boat with one yet.
    Last edited by dethow; 08-05-2016 at 11:42 AM.
    Have fun with that....

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    We're all good Darin... You may not realize it but I've been on your side this whole time.
    Hahahaa... I know... I was just making a joke about a NAMBA rules based discussion coming to ANYONE in it agreeing on something!
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •