Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 157

Thread: NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... Good Grief.

    The new NAMBA rule could be ANYTHING BUT "More"... It's less. Less restrictions, less red-tape, less ambiguity, less confusion, less gray area, less words, less space in the rulebook, less to interpret, less to maintain, less to tech, less for the CD to have to worry about, less having to maintain the rule...

    The rule is as BASIC as it gets, and truly LIMITS the class now...

    Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to stir up $hit... Or you can't read a set of calipers...

    If you can't figure it out, maybe you're in the wrong hobby and should take up knitting...

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

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done, why this is being done and the method in which it's being done in. It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)
    Try not to get too down on Terry, his District Director told him to submit it to the President, his DD and the Secretary.

    In the end it doesn't matter how it was submitted, the entire Board will decide the outcome. They could vote it in for a one year trial, send it out to the membership to decide, vote it down or table it (top of B5):

    https://nebula.wsimg.com/efb2b176fad...&alloworigin=1

    In reality tho they'll look to you for major input as you are their FE representative.

    You didn't mention the re-wind and weight issue so it looks like the only "stumbling block" (for you) is the can length?

    In your survey there are a couple "TP Power" motors that are 59 mm and "Proboat's" that are 58 mm. Wouldn't a 60 mm limit cater to these as well as any future changes to these and the Aquacraft motors? Isn't that why NAMBA went to 60 mm?

    file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/IMPBA%20Spec%20Motor%20Chart%202019-09-25%20(1).pdf

    Just trying to understand here...

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

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

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Here on our hosts OSE parts store the you have SSS 3660 $55, Leopard 3660 $50, leopard X2 3660 $70, and TP 3659 for $85. Are these motors superior? They surely don't break the bank and are available without knowing the secret hand shake. There seems to be a number of people who support 60mm. I wonder what the vote total was in NAMBA?
    Mic

    Mic Halbrehder
    IMPBA 8656
    NAMBA 1414

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post
    In your survey there are a couple "TP Power" motors that are 59 mm and "Proboat's" that are 58 mm. Wouldn't a 60 mm limit cater to these as well as any future changes to these and the Aquacraft motors? Isn't that why NAMBA went to 60 mm?


    Just trying to understand here...
    NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

    To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

    The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

    In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

    I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

    To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

    The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

    In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

    I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.
    I don't think it could be spelled out any better. Thanks Darin for your input and extensive testing, it's a shame that there are some who can't see the forest for the trees............ SMH once again.
    Futaba Team Driver
    - IMPBA Hydro Technical Director -

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... Good Grief.

    The new NAMBA rule could be ANYTHING BUT "More"... It's less. Less restrictions, less red-tape, less ambiguity, less confusion, less gray area, less words, less space in the rulebook, less to interpret, less to maintain, less to tech, less for the CD to have to worry about, less having to maintain the rule...

    The rule is as BASIC as it gets, and truly LIMITS the class now...

    Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to stir up $hit... Or you can't read a set of calipers...

    If you can't figure it out, maybe you're in the wrong hobby and should take up knitting...


    New_P_Ltd.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    NAMBA went to 60mm because you have to write rules that you can actually buy motors for. I purchased literally 20+ motors from all the various manufacturers I could find, and documented the motor sizes, then as accurately as I could, tested and stressed each of them, some to the point of failure. It's all documented and public. (See above).

    To be honest, 60mm isn't actually good enough, because several of these are 60.3mm or so, which also explains the 37mm vs. 36mm. Most are 36.3mm or something slightly larger diameter than 36mm.

    The NAMBA rule is based on data and facts, to provide abundant motor selection, and the desire to take the ambiguity out of the rules.

    In that regard, this updated rule works. It now never has to be touched again...

    I'm not here arguing that IMPBA needs to do anything, by the way. Do what you will. Your members (and I'm officially one of them, though I've never raced in that club) will respond accordingly. I'm simply trying to explain how the NAMBA rules ultimately came about.
    Where is that "Like" button we all want?
    This is ALL what's worth repeating! Well said sir.
    And thanks for chiming in Darin. Nice to hear from the person whom is most likely the smartest in the room on this subject.
    Have fun with that....

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Honestly it doesn't matter. I'm retracting the proposal.
    WHY???
    Pretty sure that the majority of membership is with you.
    Hope there's not a small group of guys in leadership positions putting pressure on you... SMH
    Have fun with that....

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Mike Ball have you read this in depth research from Darin??
    Futaba Team Driver
    - IMPBA Hydro Technical Director -

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    It's pretty sad when a FE proposal gets submitted to the IMPBA and the FE Director isn't even included, in turn being notified second hand. At the end of the day it's not the FE director that makes any decision about rules. The board tackles these things as a group. So I am not sure what avoiding the FE Director accomplishes. (this isn't the first time this has happen)
    So why are you having a temper tantrum?
    What... you wanted a chance to convince the submitting club not to do it?


    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    Another note, the club that submitted the proposal to the IMPBA are currently running a motor limit of 58mm.
    Based on YOUR influence...
    And I believe that was done within the submitting club because 58mm DOES work for RIGHT NOW and that can be easily changed at the club level if ever necessary. But when it come to putting forth a long term rule set that most hope doesn't ever need to be re-visited at the national organization level... 60mm makes more sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    I think we can all benefit from taking several steps back, tapping the breaks. Lets take a look at where we started and what it's turned into.
    Let me guess... Your next question is "What's the intent of the class?" ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MIKE!
    Have fun with that....

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    Hope there's not a small group of guys in leadership positions putting pressure on you... SMH
    No not at all. Just not willing to push the rope anymore. Above my pay grade. IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009.
    Noisy person

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    No not at all. Just not willing to push the rope anymore. Above my pay grade. IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009.
    Understood... But based on conversations both verbal and through email, along with what I've seen in the meeting minutes on the Subject... their are two individuals in leadership positions who don't want P-Limited/Spec and have been obstructing every way possible. The rest of IMPBA leadership seems open to the conversation and have even said outright that they'd like to move towards a path to get those classes in the rule book.

    So I'm just concerned that all the sudden... now that those two individuals have spoken out against the proposal you just go ahead and withdraw. We've all seen what they said publicly... Were there private emails and/or phone calls that also influenced your decision?

    Terry... please go with membership and leave the proposal. Or forward it to someone else in IMPBA willing to force the conversation. Nothing wrong with leadership having a conversation on the matter and let membership see the meeting minutes on the issue so that next election period they can vote out the individuals not allowing the progress membership wants.

    You say "IMPBA has had the emergency brake on, the truck in park, and the keys on the dash since 2009."
    This shouldn't be 100% up to the leadership or better yet... a couple guys in leadership. It should be up to membership. Yes... start with leadership to help insure a proposal is the best option available for the organization. But leadership should NOT be obstructing and silencing the voices of membership by not allowing any proposal to move forward. That's not promoting the hobby. Plain and simple. This has been the most popular FE classes for the last decade for heavens sake.

    And the FE Director is almost alone on the 58mm or less discussion. Most of the people who have been closely involved in these discussions agree with 60mm except for him. The smartest person on the Subject (Darin Jordan) who has done the most research and wrote articles on the subject agrees with 60mm. And those that weren't involved from the beginning (like Terry Keeley) can be easily convinced with simple logic. Sorry Mr. Ball... Your sticking point and line in the sand has no logic behind it. Many see it.. you just refuse to.

    And as I've said and continue to practice... If that's the road IMPBA wants to take then no FE racer or club should be involved with them.
    I will start racing again when one of 2 things happen. IMPBA stops obstructing P-Limited/Spec or there is a local NAMBA club which I can race with. I just refuse to support or race under an organization who refuses to listen to its membership and promote the hobby.
    But people change... and I'll change my point of view if they change theirs.
    Have fun with that....

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    Holy crap........Dave and I agreed on something.

    I was urged by multiple people to submit in 2017. Did. Tabled. No alternative offered. No year trial of something different. Waited patiently for two years while data was collected. I was urged to submit something that would make to organizations more harmonious. That was last week. Did. Went exactly like I thought it would. Retracted it. I'm being urged to do so again with a little bit clearer verbiage.

    I've been elbow deep in every rule update since about 2003. Was NAMBA then. Guess I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it.
    Noisy person

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Holy crap........Dave and I agreed on something.
    Terry, you and I have never been in disagreement on the basic ideas here. We just disagreed on how to get it accomplished. You've gone with patience while I listened to what I was being told by the two individuals in leadership and saw nothing would change unless their butts were put to a flame.
    I'm just deeply regretful that things got ugly between you and me.


    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    I've been elbow deep in every rule update since about 2003. Was NAMBA then. Guess I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it.
    I can respect and understand that. You should consider forwarding it to someone willing to submit it.
    Have fun with that....

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    In the interest squashing the IMPBA FE TOY BOAT RACING Deep State conspiracy theories and keeping it real.. The BOD is doing it's job. If you don't the JOB we are doing, get off the keyboard, step up, and pull your pants down around your ankles! I promise you'll be punished appropriately for your time and effort.

    Later...??.

    Proposal #2 ? Sec. J ? FE Spec Class: Proposal was submitted to add an FE Spec class (a variation of NAMBA P-Ltd class) to Sec J. Class for hulls up to 34? length. The limitation to be ?can size? maximum of 37mm x 62mm on an in-runner motor. There is limited power that can be produced from this size can and the submitters feel this will make the grow and give racers choices of new offerings not on the current approved motor list. Chris Harris FE Dir. noted that IMPBA does not have a National rule set for P-Ltd. because it was started as an entry level class to get newer boaters into the hobby for a reasonable amount. It grew in popularity with the experienced boaters and morphed into a more serious racing class, thus changing the original intent. Additionally there is no plan to allow them to run for records due to the issue of ability to tech the motors. Lengthy discussion followed. Points were made that the idea to go to can size may be too over simplistic. Cases of members ordering expensive special winds in those can sizes, then using the argument that they are not modified because they came that way were brought up. That negates the purpose of having a limitation to keep the class competitive for newer boaters. The feeling is that this proposal will turn the P-Limited or Spec class into a big money class which was never the intent. Members agreed that Stock classes and RTR classes should remain simple/less expensive for new boaters. It was noted that D4 uses the approved motor list, but has added a DP motor to the current list in their district. It was noted this same discussion has been going on for 9 years. It was noted that Gas stock classes are the most popular in LSG now. Members would like to see a rule set made, but want it to be a definite stock or RTR class. The discussion of leaving the current P-Ltd (or spec) at the district level followed. D13 still uses the approved motor list and runs this class regularly. It was noted that the issues began when ?any speed controller? became allowed. Pres. Chris noted that NAMBA is currently proposing to change the P-Ltd. class to this very ?can size? rule, and suggest we table this proposal to see what issues shake out this season, then revisit. This class can run at races using District rules. (Sec. NOTE: NAMBA proposal was withdrawn after this meeting due to the teching issue) MOTION by Chris Harris to table this motion. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. No vote. Members felt further discussion was needed. D4 noted that the class is not growing in his district, but members keep them around in event of newer boaters wanting to get started racing a less expensive class. Incoming FE Mike Ball made the point that we need to decide what we want to accomplish and then build a class that satisfies that goal. We won?t help entry level boaters with this proposal if that is true intent. Point was made that even RTR is not easy to define because the hobby companies no longer consider NAMBA and IMPBA rules when deciding on offerings. It was noted that even RTR can be managed at District and club level. Districts make accommodations on rule sets when other districts groups attend their races. Point was made that the ?can size? idea will take the cost to practically a P class cost. Board members felt it may be better to terminate this proposal. Record Director Doug Smock made the point that classes are added more for records purposes. The idea of using motor weight as a limiter (measuring tool) vs. can size was discussed. MOTION by Doug Smock to terminate this proposal. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. None opposed. Proposal terminated. ACTION: Mike Ball will begin collecting data on motors to see if the weight idea is viable for teching. Pres Chris thanked everyone for their time, and especially Chris Harris for his many years of service, and Mike Ball for stepping up to fulfill the term. Chris Harris let the board know that he is still available for teching FE motors.

    There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was requested. MOTION by FE Chris Harris to adjourn. SECOND by D1 Luc White. Meeting adjourned 9:40 PM. ET.
    Respectfully submitted, Lynne Rupley, Secretary

    Call ID: Conference 313111010, Feb 13 2018 6_54_37pm.mp3
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Someone said we need to learn from the gas guys. There is a reason they don't have Super Sport Cat, Rigger, Sport Hydro, and O/B Tunnel.

    Write a proposal on a FE Super Sport (or whatever) mono, assign it a motor dimension (or whatever) and see how fast that gets the thunbs up and goes out for a one year trial.
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Edited for the highly sensitive, sorry fellas.
    While your talking about can size... Why not limit all the heat racing classes with can sizes!?!?

    More boats will finish, the retrieve boat will go out less, and the races will be closer. What's not to like?

    Later...
    Last edited by Doug Smock; 10-02-2019 at 04:32 PM.
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Ridiculous and condescending response, but whatever.

    I have a better idea. Why not do away with the power structure completely? No limits on anything, just run what you brung?

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

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    For the resident experts...
    Really Doug?

    Hey since you brought up experts.......... did you read Darin Jordan's rather extensive and in depth study/testing of the very motor sizes we are discussing?? Good stuff right there. Since data collection is/has been used as a "talking point" I don't think there's much better than what Darin published last April regardless of which side of this topic one is on.
    Futaba Team Driver
    - IMPBA Hydro Technical Director -

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by don ferrette View Post
    Really Doug?
    I wasn't being condescending. There are some experts here right?
    Quote Originally Posted by don ferrette View Post
    it's a shame that there are some who can't see the forest for the trees............ SMH once again.
    I'll take "resident experts" for $200 Alex.. TOY BOATS fellas, lighten up.

    BTW I wasn't kidding about limits for all heat racing classes. Some are already promoting Q Limited. Is that next? If so there is time to get ahead of it. Besides folks will need something to discuss this winter since the 10th. annual P Limited discussion started so early.

    I didn't say a word about P Limited motors Don. And don't intend to. Why? Makes zero sense at this point, minds are made up. If anyone was going to change their position I imagine they would have done so by now.
    You and I already agreed to disagree, and I'm fine with that, and let's leave it at that.

    D13 is racing 36.5 X 56.5 because that's what THEY want! They have about 10 years of success and have no idea it won't work.

    I'm done with the nonsense guys! Like a buddy of mine said. "I got 99 problems, model boating ain't one of them".

    See you at the pond!
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    In the interest squashing the IMPBA FE TOY BOAT RACING Deep State conspiracy theories and keeping it real.. The BOD is doing it's job.
    The meeting minutes you copied in are from February of 2018 which was 1 year and 8 months ago. Sorry, but you can't copy in minutes from almost 2 years ago and claim the BODs are doing it's job. What is currently being done?

    And let's look at a few things from those minutes.

    "Pres. Chris noted that NAMBA is currently proposing to change the P-Ltd. class to this very "can size" rule, and suggest we table this proposal to see what issues shake out this season, then revisit."
    NAMBA has collected data, completed testing, and took in a new proposal with necessary changes made. And membership has already voted and the new rule is in the book. That's a lot of work completed in 1 year, 6 months. Job well done NAMBA. And we now know how that shook out? What's IMPBA doing?

    "MOTION by Chris Harris to table this motion. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. No vote. Members felt further discussion was needed"
    Chris wanted to table the issue, NOT terminate. I wonder which members wanted further discussion? Maybe the one that ended up motioning to terminate the proposal all together?

    "MOTION by Doug Smock to terminate this proposal. SECOND by D4 George Albrecht. None opposed. Proposal terminated."
    Ummm...

    "Mike Ball will begin collecting data on motors to see if the weight idea is viable for teching."
    Been done and determined that the weight idea can not be tech'd and most agree a simple 60mm length limit works.

    Doug you are 100% right that's it's "TOY BOAT RACING".
    So why all the concern over letting the most popular FE classes for those Toy Boats into the rule book?
    Seems that You and Mr. Ball are the only ones acting like the sky would fall if that happened. It's TOY BOAT RACING.

    You say "I got 99 problems, model boating ain't one of them".
    Well you sure do have a lot of problems whenever a proposal for P-Limited/Spec gets closer to being in the rule books.
    Please do... be "done with the nonsense" and stop obstructing.
    Have fun with that....

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    The meeting minutes you copied in are from February of 2018 which was 1 year and 8 months ago. Sorry, but you can't copy in minutes from almost 2 years ago and claim the BODs are doing it's job. What is currently being done?
    Uh yes I can. And I did. That's when the ''Spec" proposal went before the board. And believe me when I tell you, I have no problem with the motion to terminate that proposal. NONE.

    BTW I am absolutely certain that the BOD has a much better idea of what the membership wants, and more importantly what's best for the organization than you do.

    I will ignore any further by you on this subject. Know that.

    Have a world class evening.
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    BTW I am absolutely certain that the BOD has a much better idea of what the membership wants, and more importantly what's best for the organization than you do.
    And there it is people... one of your IMPBA leadership/BOD members speaking for the entire leadership/BOD.

    Doug... it's not about knowing more then "I" do. That's not a difficult task.
    It's about you and maybe the rest of the BODs (if you truly reflect their beliefs), thinking your small group are the only ones who know anything and you're the only voices who matter.

    Hate to start up any name calling again... your statements really make it hard. SMFH...But I will not do that.

    I have no intention of furthering a discussion with you on this matter Doug. You are a waste of time.
    I think people might finally be seeing your true colors.

    This is the reason I will not be part of IMPBA and continue to suggest FE Clubs should be with NAMBA. The organization that actually wants to promote FE Racing.

    Meanwhile, like Terry Davis "I'm tired. Let somebody else handle it."
    Have fun with that....

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Gang, let's take it down a notch............

    Perhaps the simplest approach might be for the IMPBA BOD to vote to send this proposal directly to membership vote, let the members decide what's best. That is one of 4 options the BOD has in dealing with proposals and regardless of what some may think the BOD does in general a damn good job in handling proposals and determining the most important Q- will it benefit the organization as a whole. I spent over a decade serving the membership on the BOD and am still doing so but now in a non voting role (national hydro director) and will say this- we all too often get remembered for that one issue some don't agree with rather than all the good that gets done...............
    Last edited by don ferrette; 10-02-2019 at 06:06 AM. Reason: spelling
    Futaba Team Driver
    - IMPBA Hydro Technical Director -

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    417

    Default

    If I was on the Board now hearing conflicting information from the very people that run FE I'd do exactly that. Let the membership decide. It doesn't get more grass roots or democratic than that.

    From pg. B-3: https://nebula.wsimg.com/efb2b176fad...&alloworigin=1

    c) Option #3 - All rule proposals not supported and not terminated under option #2 by the
    Board, will be distributed to IMPBA membership in December for vote by a ballot that will
    require a head count for or against the proposal. The membership vote will determine the
    implementation of said proposal and, if passed, will be effective as of the beginning of the
    next racing season. Results will also be published in the next Roostertail newsletter.

    BTW, I had NO IDEA you guys were so passionate about this subject, had I have known I would never have brought it up. But now that I have maybe something good will come of it for model boating.

    From what I see as an outsider the NAMBA rule is a good one, they have done their homework and have adopted a simple, easy to tech rule for their membership. I hope IMPBA will follow suit otherwise they will surely lose members...

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    You are wasting your time, FE'ers. It's abundantly clear where the IMPBA leadership stands. This will never be in the hands of the members, and your leadership has taken their stand. Doesn't fit their paradigm.

    Their choice is clear. Next moves are up to you. I'm assuming you can all reason out as to WHO pays the bills??
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post
    Hey guys. First off I don't want to start a $hit storm here but.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post

    BTW, I had NO IDEA you guys were so passionate about this subject, had I have known I would never have brought it up
    No you didn't just type that! Better check your sent messages from the 22nd.

    SMDH
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    On
    Posts
    380

    Default

    This is hurting my head …… again. Just can't wait for the Q discussions on motor ,esc, and Batteries.
    Jay.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    No you didn't just type that! Better check your sent messages from the 22nd.

    SMDH
    Ya, I knew it was a "hot topic" but I had no idea it was THAT hot and there was so much history and such opposing views on the subject.

    Again, it seems this thread is doing some good, to re-cap:



    It seems the majority want National P Limited rules in the IMPBA.

    It sounds like the the issue of re-winds and weight is pretty inconsequential and difficult to tech.

    It seems like can size is the major limiting factor to KV output and cost.

    It looks like the majority of the low cost motors would have a 37 x 58-59 mm or smaller can.

    It seems NAMBA has done their homework and adopted a 37 x 60 mm rule for simplicity and to allow for any current and future can size deviations.



    So am I right here that the current debate is about 1 mm in can length?
    Last edited by Terry Keeley; 10-02-2019 at 09:13 AM.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by don ferrette View Post
    Mike Ball have you read this in depth research from Darin??
    Don Ferrette - I find it funny you're asking me if I read the PropWash article. I have read the PropWash article and lived in this world for awhile now. Quite frankly, I have been elbows deep in this steaming pile of volcano crap since it started. The question is; have YOU read the article? Questioning me and my comprehension level without imparting us with YOUR wisdom seems a little one sided.

    I suspect you and I have digested the data very similarly. If we didn't, you wouldn't' have been looking under rocks for the 1500kv ProBoat on FaceBook awhile back for your district 1/10 scale class. Mind you this motor has been out of production for several years. Oh and by the way, it' only 56mm long. If you were so hell bent on 60mm being a solution why would you be looking for a motor that has been out of production for multiple years? Just go buy one of those 60mm motors that is readily available on OSE?

    Data is what the data is and the data doesn't lie. However, how the data is interpeptide and used to establish rules is something different. Simply having more motor options isn't the entire solution. We need to have motor options AND we need to have a narrow range of performance swing.

    Here is what I take away from the data

    *Our baseline motors (Aquacraft and Proboat/Dynamite all 56mm long) were much higher performing that we gave them credit for. On the water testing still supports this today.
    *Pretty much all of motors tested (regardless of length) were inferior to the baseline. MORE (speaking of length) isn't better! Some will say this contradicts my argument.
    *I don't know about others, but there is NO WAY I, in good conscious, would recommend any motor other than a current ProBoat (2000kv), one of the AquaCraft motors (2030 or 1800), or maybe the SSS (I haven't seen many of these run). Nothing even comes close to the performance of these motors. We are talking about new boaters here. Seasoned racers, already know what motors to buy. THAT?S WHY THEY KEEP BUYING THE 56mm MOTORS!
    *I keep getting the $50-$60 Leopard example thrown at me? Anyone that would recommend that motor should be force to race with it as well. Darin?s data and others who have commented clearly state that motor just isn't comparable (performance wise).
    *Why wouldn't a rule be written to set potential new comers up for success AND PERFORMANCE?
    *What the data doesn't tell us - How well will an "optimized" 60mm motor will perform when compared to the baseline. This is regardless if it's a Frankensteined homemade/wound motor or a special order, purpose built from a reputable manufacturer. Why do we need to wait and find out when we have perfectly good 56mm motors that have been used for the last how many years? MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER.


    Proboat UL-19 has a 56mm motor - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...od=hh-prb08028

    Proboat Veles has a 56mm motor - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...od=hh-prb08029

    ProMarine RC - sells boats with a 56mm (2030KV) option ? (can?t seem to get the website to work)

    I am sure there is some NEW old stock of the Revolt, Lucas, Motley Crew, and UL-1 floating around

    AquaCraft 1800 is STILL in stock - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...od=hh-aqug7002

    AquaCraft 2030 is STILL in stock - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...od=hh-aqug7001

    SSS 2030 is available (same as ProMarineRC) - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...?prod=tfl-3656

    ProBoat/Dynamite 2000kv is available - https://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pr...od=hh-dynm3831

    Later,
    Ball
    Last edited by longballlumber; 10-02-2019 at 09:14 AM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •