Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 88

Thread: Namba oval racing class changes ***

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    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"
    I'm going to ask the question again (at the risk of coming off as kind of an A$$)... CAN IT BE TECH'd??

    You can't have a formal Tech Process if the rules aren't tech-able.

    Can someone describe to me how you'd accurately tech a present P-LTD motor?? (Rhetorical... I already know the answer).

    I'm ready to just leave P-LTD exactly like it is and it WILL die off in 2-3 years, just do to present motor supplies. I suppose my intent would be to keep the class going with a techable set of rules, using an endless supply of motors that automatically refreshes itself without having to revisit the rules, and to keep the power available under a certain maximum standard.

    The effect: A LIMITED power (maximum sized motors) 4-Cell ("P) class that provides a reasonable level of parity (you're only going to get SO much power out of this limited size of motor) and isn't beholden to the offerings of any ONE, or two, or ?? motor suppliers. If you find a motor that fits the dimensional limits that will run on 4S, It's legal.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference? Do you really think you'll get the same participation numbers (or better) by having those classes vs. a more refined limited (spec) class? Is the perception the class will be bring in new racers?

    I get your tech-able soap box, but I am not sure why it's a priority all of a sudden. We have been running for years on the honor system; and it's worked for the most part (i think).

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference?
    I disagree with this premise... REAL P-Boats are allowed twins (or ANY number of motors)... motors are unlimited ( 1515's, 1527's, 1530's etc...), boats are full 34", 4S2P 10,000mAh, 200+Amp ESCs... It's not accurate to say "small performance difference", just because the majority aren't running there. And it's REALLY not accurate to say small cost difference.

    Honestly, I don't care what happens here one-way or the other, as far as official NATIONAL NAMBA rules go. We can just avoid the discussions and let P-LTD run it's course. Participation if fine. It's the biggest class going.

    But, what I DO KNOW, is that motor supplies ARE going to fall by the wayside. It's already happening. Get those 1500KV Dynamites now, while you still can. 1800's are back... are they, or will they be the same? Who knows. Anything new from AQ lately? Hopefully??

    Some of my local club members approached me at several of our recent Nats planning meetings and we've discussed this issue and that's part of why this has come up. It's a LOCAL issue for us, as a club of over 30 people, and every class is P-LTD. And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.

    Why did I post it here? Because I wanted to see what other clubs thought. That's it. It's always nice to hear other opinions and see options/concerns that we may not have considered.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Love this discussion. I've been asking the same questions in regards to 1:10 Scale racing. The idea of getting away from any particular motors and trying to set a group of spec limitations instead had come up in our club. It's too frustrating to keep losing motor options when supplies run out or quality in production changes. I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow. The more I hear, the more I've come to agree. I'll be interested to see how this issue turns out with our club and on a national level.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coug90 View Post
    I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow.
    Mine is just one opinion, but after playing with this stuff for a few years, and literally investing nearly $1000.00 in JUST testing all these motors, I've come to the conclusion that we really only have two viable options:

    1) LIMIT the motor options to just ONE CHOICE. Revisit the choice and the rules each year or two, depending on supply. Deal with the tech issues, etc.

    2) LIMIT the motor options by physical size. Never have to revisit the rules again. Make a go/no-go gauge for tech. Go racing.

    Those can both be considered very "fair" options, depending on your views. (I won't go political on this, but I EASILY could! )

    One makes everyone the same, stringent, and clearly defined "choice" of motor, and leaves everyone to have to deal with the numerous tech and supply issues that go with that choice. It also puts a heavy burden on the Club, as this motor definition will have to be revisited as supply issues occur, and it also leaves the user beholden to the ONE supplier.

    The other one provides everyone an equal opportunity at success, but leaves it up to the individual to decide and choose, within some defined but VERY easy to follow dimensional parameters. Some will choose wisely, others perhaps not so much, but all would be fair given that there is nothing locking you into your choice if you happened to choose wrong the first time around. When one finds a better way, others can follow and enjoy that success as well. Power levels will naturally be held to a clear limit, because, well, size matters.

    Clearly, I choose option 2.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    8,736

    Default

    Option 2 is cool because it's more inclusive. The slight advantages of any spec motor by size will usually get negated by race conditions and other things that happen in a race.
    Nortavlag Bulc

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.
    This is why I keep coming back to my "why wait?" stance. Consider those that actually are willing to travel. I recognize it's a tiny group and a bit self serving on my part to be concerned about it but I could see the list of travelers getting even smaller.

    If our local gang opted for this new idea and I field oh let's say 10 limited boats with motors x,y,z to meet the size spec.....................and I then decide to travel too. Pick any race really. I need to have legal stuff per their rules when I get there. For instance if I went to the Vegas NATS I would have to come up with additional motors based on the old spec. Then an extra or two for the inevitable hiccup. Every boat has to be re-calibrated in regards to props, struts, CG. Maybe. Who knows. Months of testing to get that right if I'm already racing based on the new potential size spec. Ugh. Guess which races I wont be traveling to? Any clinging to the old spec.

    I "could" just run the old spec as it will still be legal but up here this new idea is going to need me on board. Not trying to be a weeny (it's a gift). That's just the way it is.

    If local clubs go with this new idea to see how it pans but we wait to get it in the book there wont be any travelers in 2017. Just a hunch.
    Noisy person

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,817

    Default

    BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.
    Noisy person

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.
    Did you just burst into flames when you wrote this?????

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,817

    Default

    haha More like a smolder.

    I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?
    Noisy person

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    haha More like a smolder.

    I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?
    It matters not to me..as long as the current batch of motors are still OK....

    I still think that motors are the least of the worries when racing...a few KV here or there, a few mm difference make no difference.....proper set up and driving are much bigger factors.

    Hard to finish a race if the boats un-drivable and upside-down.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.
    Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,817

    Default

    Didn't think of that.

    We had a pretty nasty collision at our last race. I was running the carbon PayPak on loan. Todd spun in front of me with the Winston lobster. Before the CD could say "sp.." I hit him wide open. Never even saw him. Add a few mph and we would have needed a pool skimmer.
    Noisy person

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raptor347 View Post
    Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.
    He's absolutely right. The hull limitations cap the performance. That is why our club opted for a motor that would slow our vintage class down by about 5 mph a few years back. An appropriate set of motor specs could be made separately for modern boats, but either way, within a few years, you will see speeds return to what you had originally due to guys getting used to the spec and setups and using better props and battery options that improve all the time. We'll always be chasing a moving target. The problem is how to manage that based on the goals set for the class. You can limit spec on all of the gear, but at some point it gets to be a detriment to managing. The more you isolate spec, the more you potentially have to tech if you don't want to rely on the buddy system as much. Motors are the most difficult piece to tech and to manage long term. Seems reasonable to go in a direction that would make motor tech and class longevity planning easier to deal with.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Regarding 1/10th scale, the proposed motor dimensions should work fine in modern, but as stated previously vintage would be interesting. Moving away from scale in vintage defeats the purpose of scale, otherwise its just a sport hydro class. The current motors just aren't built well enough (mostly the power wires, wth??) I run a Leopard 3674 2200kv in my Oberto, and heat isn't a factor (our water temps are generally cooler here). I haven't run anything like a AQ2030 kv size motor, so I don't know what the motors in the 36x61mm range would do at higher than 1500-1700kv like we currently use.

    Has anyone looked at outrunner specs for the proposed classes?

    We use a smaller kv outrunner in vintage here (Coug90 and myself club) with a comparable outrunner with himax and proboat in classic modern. But as mentioned, we have to revisit the motor spec rules every so often as supply changes. This keeps the speeds at a certain level for the hulls and keeps it competitive.

    Not sure what 1/8th scale does.
    Ron
    1/10th 2014 U-6 Oberto ,1999 U-6 Miss Madison, 1971 U-6 Miss Madison, 1976 U-6 Miss Madison Unlimited Hydros

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    8,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post
    Regarding 1/10th scale, the proposed motor dimensions should work fine in modern, but as stated previously vintage would be interesting. Moving away from scale in vintage defeats the purpose of scale, otherwise its just a sport hydro class. The current motors just aren't built well enough (mostly the power wires, wth??) I run a Leopard 3674 2200kv in my Oberto, and heat isn't a factor (our water temps are generally cooler here). I haven't run anything like a AQ2030 kv size motor, so I don't know what the motors in the 36x61mm range would do at higher than 1500-1700kv like we currently use.



    Has anyone looked at outrunner specs for the proposed classes?

    We use a smaller kv outrunner in vintage here (Coug90 and myself club) with a comparable outrunner with himax and proboat in classic modern. But as mentioned, we have to revisit the motor spec rules every so often as supply changes. This keeps the speeds at a certain level for the hulls and keeps it competitive.

    Not sure what 1/8th scale does.
    I really like the Suppo outrunner available here:
    http://justgorc.com/zencart/index.ph...products_id=56

    Just 1.3mm too much diameter. You get a lot for $21.00. They make a 2200kv version and shorter ones too. Hobbyking used to sell them and fightercat.
    Nortavlag Bulc

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    This is why I keep coming back to my "why wait?" stance. Consider those that actually are willing to travel. I recognize it's a tiny group and a bit self serving on my part to be concerned about it but I could see the list of travelers getting even smaller.

    If our local gang opted for this new idea and I field oh let's say 10 limited boats with motors x,y,z to meet the size spec.....................and I then decide to travel too. Pick any race really. I need to have legal stuff per their rules when I get there. For instance if I went to the Vegas NATS I would have to come up with additional motors based on the old spec. Then an extra or two for the inevitable hiccup. Every boat has to be re-calibrated in regards to props, struts, CG. Maybe. Who knows. Months of testing to get that right if I'm already racing based on the new potential size spec. Ugh. Guess which races I wont be traveling to? Any clinging to the old spec.

    I "could" just run the old spec as it will still be legal but up here this new idea is going to need me on board. Not trying to be a weeny (it's a gift). That's just the way it is.

    If local clubs go with this new idea to see how it pans but we wait to get it in the book there wont be any travelers in 2017. Just a hunch.
    Agreed... and what about our MI Cup???
    So if we as a club (MMEU) decide to go with new size spec... it is going to be difficult to get travelers that still follow NAMBA spec. They will most likely not be able to compete in the limited classes and won't want to travel just to get beat.
    That is unless you are Doby with the perfect boat setups and you're the best driver at the pond...
    Have fun with that....

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    I think its time to start "teching" the drivers.

    One other thing I forgot to mention that's even more important than setup/driving......LUCK.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    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.
    I get what you are saying here Mike, but there's another side you are missing. There are RTR or ARTR boats being produced and bought by new guys which have motors that would fit the 36x61 size specs. But instead of just buying and running at the club... they are told they need to go buy a different motor, solder new connectors, and run their boat slightly slower then it was stock. We're loosing new racers due to the current limited motor rules.

    Here is the best ARTR p-mono on the market (IMO) which comes with an SSS 3660 motor. Can't run it in limited class... That's wrong.
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...-80250-1106-2b

    And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
    Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...80250-1131-yel

    And lets not forget that the new V3 Geico and Blackjack no longer fit. They need a new motor as well. MMEU has been allowing the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv 36x61mm (DYNM3910), but it's not in the rules... Not without the CD giving the discretion if a motor fits within the 5% rule. But do we really know if the new Proboat/Dynamite motors fit within the 5% increase in max constant amp rating? They don't list that spec anywhere I can see. Aquacraft motors are 50a max constant. And the SSS motors are used in 'ARTR' not the 'RTR' boats discussed within the CD discretion area of the rules.

    So pretty sure that the only boats that can currently be bought RTR or ARTR and run stock without invoking CD discretion are Aquacrafts. I don't feel it's fair for NAMBA to basically promote a single manufacturer with it's rules.

    The rule worked 5 years ago... but it doesn't anymore. Time to move forward and write a new rule that will stand the test of time and move along with ALL manufactures.
    Last edited by dethow; 07-30-2016 at 03:37 PM.
    Have fun with that....

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    I get what you are saying here Mike, but there's another side you are missing. There are RTR or ARTR boats being produced and bought by new guys which have motors that would fit the 36x61 size specs. But instead of just buying and running at the club... they are told they need to go buy a different motor, solder new connectors, and run their boat slightly slower then it was stock. We're loosing new racers due to the current limited motor rules.

    Here is the best ARTR p-mono on the market (IMO) which comes with an SSS 3660 motor. Can't run it in limited class... That's wrong.
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...-80250-1106-2b

    And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
    Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...80250-1131-yel

    And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
    Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...80250-1131-yel

    And lets not forget that the new V3 Geico and Blackjack no longer fit. They need a new motor as well. MMEU has been allowing the Proboat/Dynamite 3660 2000kv, but it's not in the rules... Not without the CD giving the discretion if a motor fits within the 5% rule.

    But do we really know if the new Proboat/Dynamite motors fit within the 5% increase in max constant amp rating? They don't list that spec anywhere I can see. Aquacraft motors are 50a max constant current. But than again, the SSS motors are used in 'ARTR' not the 'RTR' boats discussed within the CD discretion area of the rule.

    So pretty sure that the only boats that can currently be bought RTR or ARTR and run stock without invoking CD discretion are Aquacrafts. I don't feel it's fair for NAMBA to basically promote a single manufacturer with it's rules.

    The rule worked 5 years ago... but it doesn't anymore. Time to move forward and write a new rule that will stand the test of time and move along with ALL manufactures.

    Dave, I am not arguing that we don't need a change. I understand we need something. However, having a limited, lite, restricted, spec, however you want to call it class with the ONLY restriction is physical motor size doesn't seem it will provide the same level of performance equalization we are currently experiencing.

    Give Terry Davis a $300 top of the line motor against a new guy with a RTR (pick one)? We all know what is going to happen. The key thing I am focusing on is PERCEPTION. Does the new guy think his limited experience is the factor or doe the new guy realize Mr. Davis has a super cool kick a$$ motor/controller combo. What is the FIRST upgrade you see all over this forum??? bigger, faster, more KV motor. Restrictions for a "Limited" class is good.

    Don't know, just would like to see cost's controlled, amp draw controlled, and minimize guys burning stuff up. Sometimes I feel like we are working to preserve this to benefit our existing racers rather than working on a rule set that is going to benefit NAMBA membership by INCREASTING the number of racers. MORE racers doesn't seem to be part of this objective. Manufacturers of RTR's are going to do whatever makes them more money. Conforming to the new RTR's is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Next year, they will have different motors with different sizes. just my 2 pennies.

    Later,
    Ball

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    Dave, I am not arguing that we don't need a change. I understand we need something. However, having a limited, lite, restricted, spec, however you want to call it class with the ONLY restriction is physical motor size doesn't seem it will provide the same level of performance equalization we are currently experiencing.

    Give Terry Davis a $300 top of the line motor against a new guy with a RTR (pick one)? We all know what is going to happen. The key thing I am focusing on is PERCEPTION. Does the new guy think his limited experience is the factor or doe the new guy realize Mr. Davis has a super cool kick a$$ motor/controller combo. What is the FIRST upgrade you see all over this forum??? bigger, faster, more KV motor. Restrictions for a "Limited" class is good.

    Don't know, just would like to see cost's controlled, amp draw controlled, and minimize guys burning stuff up. Sometimes I feel like we are working to preserve this to benefit our existing racers rather than working on a rule set that is going to benefit NAMBA membership by INCREASTING the number of racers. MORE racers doesn't seem to be part of this objective. Manufacturers of RTR's are going to do whatever makes them more money. Conforming to the new RTR's is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Next year, they will have different motors with different sizes. just my 2 pennies.

    Later,
    Ball
    1st: Same that happens now... with both Terry and Tom (at least in P-Limited-Mono). Their boats are noticeably faster due to much time testing and setting up. So new guy knows they have the same motor and resigns to the fact that they to will have to spend almost every Wednesday and Saturday at the pond to compete with them.

    2nd: Perception now is that you can only go buy an Aquacraft boat to come race in NAMBA without having to dive into buying and replacing motors.

    3rd: New guy will realize he/she is new and come out and have some fun with their new boat and maybe take a few 2nd and 3rd places due to flip overs. New guy will get his feet wet with his RTR boat and decide later if he/she wants to invest in a new motor... Instead of being forced to either buy an Aquacraft or invest in a new motor before they've turned a single lap.

    4th: This size spec is getting away from confirming to the new RTR. RTR will have to confirm to us. Keep their RTR motor to 36x61 max size if you want used in NAMBA limited class. Will they...? Some will and some won't... who cares?

    5th: You're speculation that a Terry Davis will go spend $300 on a limited class motor is unjustified. Terry Davis is currently spending $120 on TP motors for P classes and winning races over Neu and Lahner motors. And so is Tom. Terry, Tom and Tyler took the cup this year without using high dollar motors.

    I have a lot of respect for you Mike and I concede you have a lot more knowledge and experience then I... but I feel you are off base here. Anything outside of doing size specs is either not able to be specd... or we would be going back to a specific list of motors again which will just have to be changed again in ??? years. And that method would be the ultimate in confirming to RTR.

    Just make the size spec... more RTR boats can get involved without having to change motors... and racers can decide later if they want to change motor. You know... when they have pushed the limits of that RTR motor with bigger props. Then they can take what they've learned and take advise given to go get a better quality motor for the replacement. This keeps new racers encouraged... encouraged that they have an option instead of just going out and spending another $80 on the same motor they just burned up trying to catch a Terry Davis or you or Tom or even 16 year old Tyler.
    Last edited by dethow; 07-30-2016 at 04:54 PM.
    Have fun with that....

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    "Off base" is a little strong....

    Sounds like there is a silver bullet that I am not seeing.

    We should change the name of the class "size matters". 😄

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    "Off base" is a little strong....

    Sounds like there is a silver bullet that I am not seeing.

    We should change the name of the class "size matters". ��

    Sorry, if you felt that was strong. Should I have just said I feel you are wrong?

    And guess right now we should call it "brand matters".
    Size being proposing is no different than the current motors. Size doesn't change which means its still "limited" compared to open p classes.

    As I said... the only perception given to the new guys is that NAMBA only likes Aquacraft RTRs in limited classes and new guys who want to buy a different boat are punished by having to go buy a new motor before they've turned a single lap.

    We have a new guy in MMEU named Chris. He told me at our last race that he has a friend who may have joined as well but he refuses to go changing his motor out just to race in the club.

    There were 5 Aquacrafts burned up at our last race. Three were mine and all three were in proven setups that haven't changed since mid-last year.
    $225 out of my pocket in one day... YEAH! I'd like other options before THIS new guy drops out of NAMBA due to bad motor rules. Someone call me when the rules change. That's about where I'm at.
    Have fun with that....

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    This is exactly why the forums are difficult to exchange two way conversations; tone and dilect is nearly impossible to understand (communicate).

    I am not mad or against a motor rule change. I feel like I have stated that previously.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    This is exactly why the forums are difficult to exchange two way conversations; tone and dilect is nearly impossible to understand (communicate).

    I am not mad or against a motor rule change. I feel like I have stated that previously.
    Understood Mike... and I didn't really think you were mad. I'm not mad either, just so you know.
    Well, at least not at you. A bit frustrated with these AQ motors thou.

    No worries... I'm getting to know you enough that anything you are saying or proposing is your opinion into the best interest of this hobby.
    And I didn't mean to make it seem like I was attacking you, if that's what you thought. I just don't agree with your thoughts on perception of a new guy.
    Have fun with that....

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.
    I will bet my dynamite 1500 would outrun the tp motor.. Just saying

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    One I can see the merits of a size spec.. But I sldo see the merits of a single motor.. The only way you can call it dpec in my eyes are a single motor.. And yes that oprn up to manufacturing.. How long will such said mfgr keep making such said motor.. And on the size spec.. I like the idea.. But again I think that opens the door for people to complain that so or do dpent 300$ on a motor that's why he's winning.. Though we know that isn't the case.. I for one am ok with the current rules but do think change is coming or limited is gonna die off.. Which is sad because these are obviously the biggest classes at a club or national level..I'm not sure I agree 100% with either option.. So now what?? I will say that I am totally against the notion of just having 2 power sizes.. P1 and p2.. Again just my opinion

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayzerdesigns View Post
    I will bet my dynamite 1500 would outrun the tp motor.. Just saying
    I think that would depend on who is working the props...
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayzerdesigns View Post
    But again I think that opens the door for people to complain that so or do dpent 300$ on a motor that's why he's winning..
    Funny that no one is complaining about my $100.00 motors winning...

    Or complaining when they've spent $300.00 on a motor are are NOT winning...

    As for "spec"... this isn't spec... it's not now... and it's never been. It's "LIMITED"... You are absolutely right... "SPEC" would require a single motor option. We could go either way I suppose. I think the negatives of a "SPEC" idea far outweigh the positives for LONG TERM use. I think that's part of the reason for the discussion and the idea behind simply limiting physical size. By doing so, you really NEVER have to visit the motor rules again, and it's pretty damned clear on what is/isn't legal. Also, you are absolutely limiting the power available via the motor for the class, so you've very effectively LIMITED the classes performance potential.

    As for P1/P2... I agree now. I was really just opening the conversation with that. My real ideal would be P-LTD, P, Q, and Open I don't see a need for any other power levels, and that's MORE than enough classes to include EVERYONE at a "National" event (and, honestly, HOW many of those actually happen anymore??) Anything else can be handled with the local clubs, in efforts to get new people involved.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,817

    Default

    I understand the cost concern Mike. I do. I've personally screwed up a size limit in a class before. Remember our N2 Sport club class? I killed that running Lehners I think.

    Having raced with and against Mike for years I can tell you that speed doesn't come from his wallet. Mike's boats simply do more with less. Kudos sir. Speed comes from knowledge. Recognizing the little things for what they are. Spending obscene time with a prop. Recognizing what adjustment does what to what. All that time has value. You can't put a number on it. If a guy spends hours sharpening a prop and hits the pond and decides to bend it this way or that way to get a half mph......what's it worth? Is it fair? If a guy doesn't have that skill, knowledge, or simply no time and buys one from Andy Brown for $75..............is that the same? I buy props from Dasboata when I'm pressed for time. Others do it because they don't do props. Fair to the guy that doesn't know he needs to sharpen his prop at all?

    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. Sorry guys. No out runners. Less mud in the water. KISS thinking.

    The original "limitation" held up for about 7 years. Giver er' take. About 3 years longer than Dave and I thought it would. This new potential motor size limit won't be perfect either but would provide a stepping point between toy boat owners and the psychopaths......that would be me...........but would still be interesting enough to get the vets to do it too.

    A little perspective too. Limited encompasses really only 7 classes. Of those, only 4 run regularly. Those 4 are the most popular classes in FE ever. Period.

    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.

    BTW At the club level I am only racing 2 classes of late. Only one of which is limited. Our club doesn't need my participation for the classes to run. Numbers are solid. Frees me up to do more CD'n and such. Yes, that's a work in progress too.
    Noisy person

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •