Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 157

Thread: NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    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.
    What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.

    And, you can NOT TECH THE CURRENT RULES! Good Grief, how many times do we have to go through this?

    Do what you will. Due Diligence, including YEARS of actual race testing (PSFEMCB has been running this formula for over 3 years now) prove this system works.

    Those opposed to this are simply wrong. I'm right, and the data supports my position on this. Do what you will. I could give a rats a$$ at this point.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    SMH...
    Mike, you've given two motor options for the future. The ProBoat/Dynamite 2000kv and the SSS/Promarine 2030.
    It is well known that the AQs MAY not be available much longer.
    And the only reason all of the motors you mention currently have advantage is because they are 6-pole compared to 4-pole.

    And let's just consider that 3 years from now the AQs are gone and then ProBoat/Dynamite and/or SSS comes out with a slightly larger (58-59mm) 6-pole motor that slightly out preforms the current sized 56mm motor. SO WHAT!?
    Or maybe Leopard or another comes out with a 4-pole at 60mm that has more copper inside and can actually compete with the 56mm 6-poles. SO WHAT!?

    People can go get that new motor(s) and maybe (at best) pick up 2-3 mph in their boats and now the classes will have truly hit their limit.
    The motors will still cost less than $100 and there will be RTR boats that come with those new motors.

    And if a specific club has immediate concerns that they don't want their guys to have to spend the $$$ buying a new motor in order to compete... they can (at the club level) outlaw a single motor choice until they as a club are ready to proceed.

    If we go with your thought... if that new motor is ever made we have to tell guys to pull that new motor and go spend $100 for a smaller motor. Heck, we'd have that situation right now. A new guy could go buy a Pursuit or Popeye right off OSE and the RTR motor it comes with wouldn't fit within your limit. We all know those boats won't dominate with that stock SSS 4-pole motor but it'd get him/her on the water and be able to compete with the right prop and setup. And then they can choose to make a change later if they want.

    The idea is to set a limit which we don't want to exceed while at the same time provide enough options for both now and the future.
    Your idea sets a limit to never exceed what we have right now which in turn provides no solution to one of the main reasons this discussion and process started. Choice of motor options is becoming slim and looks to get worse.

    But as Darin says... "Do what you will."
    I'm just sick of dealing with someone who thinks he is the smartest person in the room when his thought process completely ignores one of the two main reasons why NAMBA changed their rule set.
    1.) Provide more motor options. 2.) Be more techable.
    And those two things were fully accomplished while still setting a limit on the classes which keeps speeds and costs down for beginners.

    What aren't you understanding???
    Have fun with that....

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.
    This isn't/wasn't missed at all.... I am fully aware the higher performing motors are 6 POLE motors. I am also aware the motors tested outside of the baseline were 4 POLE motors. Just to put a cherry on top of my perceived ignorance - I am also aware the Lehner motors are 2 POLE motors.

    So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    I don't get it. The opposition to it that is. FE experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. IMPBA said absolutely NOT since inception. Paraphrasing. IMPBA members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the IMPBA representation believe their job is to protect the organization from FE? They're supposed to represent the members. ONLY!!!

    Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, FE, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it.

    This is the second time I've heard the size limits for all classes. From two guys......anywhere. Ever. In fairness, the one guy was just bitching.
    Noisy person

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)
    My testing data showed that there are equivalent 36x60mm motors that will perform on par with the currently, available for now, P-LTD motors.

    Additionally, someone who actually understands what they are doing could take a Lehner 2-Pole, a TP 4-Pole, or a Dynamite 6-Pole, and tailor their setup to get equivalent performance out of any of them.

    I'm done with this conversation. You guys do what you want. Clearly there are those who just don't want to deal with logic and reason and data and real-world testing. It's not worth the hassle or the time to argue about this. IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing.

    Screw this P-LTD idea. It's clearly been a failure over the past 10-years...
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Wait... wait... wait...

    Is there an easy way to tell if a motor is 2, 4 or 6 pole without taking it apart?

    Could you set a 57mm length limit on 6-pole motors and a 60mm limit on 2 and 4-pole motors?

    Maybe... just maybe... we have a happy medium here. As long as that can be tech'd.
    Probably can't be done easily thou... Right?

    Some images for any following along... that don't know what the difference is between 2, 4 and 6-pole motors
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by dethow; 10-02-2019 at 10:47 AM.
    Have fun with that....

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s.davis View Post
    i don't get it. The opposition to it that is. Fe experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. Impba said absolutely not since inception. Paraphrasing. Impba members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the impba representation believe their job is to protect the organization from fe? They're supposed to represent the members. Only!!!

    Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, fe, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it
    .
    Like
    Have fun with that....

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post
    It seems the majority want National P Limited rules in the IMPBA.
    Where did you find the majority?
    I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread. Noisy doesn't = majority.

    I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

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

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    When I got into this hobby (about 5 years ago), I was quickly able to figure out that IMPBA was more about gas/nitro and at a minimum NAMBA was more about FE then IMPBA was. I was able to see that from what clubs around me were running and from a quick look at the rule books.

    A few years later (about 2.5 years ago) the NAMBA club I joined made a democratic choice to go from NAMBA to IMPBA with some of the rational being that IMPBA was supposedly looking to develop some new focus on FE. And (at that time) was more open to developing P-Limited/Spec classes which would better fit the dimensional rules our club members liked.

    Then about 1.5 years ago it was made obvious to me that IMPBA leadership had no intention on ever allowing Limited/Spec classes into the rule book. I was told as much by two members of leadership and those point of views and efforts continue to this day.

    During that same time period I saw ethical and rules violations taking place that I didn't agree with. I decided to not race under the IMPBA moniker and thus left that local club and nothing has changed with the IMPBA since. And I've been told by a member of leadership that the same violations would be done again if that meant not having to allow Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.

    As Darin says "IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing."
    I personally don't see how any club that only races FE could be involved with IMPBA. The organization just doesn't come close to competing with the commitment made by NAMBA to promote FE racing. And this can be proven by the FACT that NAMBA can have National Championship Race Events which include the most popular FE classes (P-Limited) for National Champion Awards without violating its own rule book.

    And then factor in a club which has hosted several National Championship Events and would most likely do more in the future... I see no way that club should be involved with IMPBA.

    And now Doug says "In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that."
    IMPBA does not come close to competing with NAMBA in terms of the amount of FE membership or clubs. If you want to compete with NAMBA and show FE Racers/Clubs that IMPBA is doing what it can to promote the FE hobby... then YES, you need a National class rule for that.

    And Doug, where did you find the majority that DON'T want it? You're fairly certain????
    Again, making it sound like your opinions are the only ones that matter. I believe there's a term for that...
    Last edited by dethow; 10-02-2019 at 01:39 PM.
    Have fun with that....

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    Where did you find the majority?
    I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread. Noisy doesn't = majority.

    I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

    Later

    I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

    What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread.
    We'll never know what the majority thinks. You guys have made that perfectly clear. You've decided for the organization and NEVER let the membership decide.

    At the first IMPBA Nats in a decade, the most popular classes were limited/spec. At almost every major event with FE for the passed 10 years the most populated FE classes were "limited". Might be exceptions but they are rare. Before there was a "limited" the most popular FE classes were Limited Sport Hydro and Limited Sport Offshore. Pre-brushless motors. Those date back to about 2003. IMPBA missed those boats too. For close to 16 years the most popular classes were some kind of limited. This would be "data". In fairness however......... "data" still isn't an indication of what the membership wants. Only the membership itself can decide what the "majority" wants or thinks. We simply don't know. We never get that far.

    The numbers don't lie either. NAMBA members outnumber IMPBA by a lot. Result of FE? Highly (very highly) unlikely but they can field heats at a nationals. We can't. Apparently or we would have had another. So the fact is that IMPBA actually isn't putting butts on the stand. Not FE butts at least.

    If by "crossover" you mean NAMBA guys crossing to play IMPBA I'm confident they would be in favor of having the same rule in both organizations.
    Noisy person

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post
    I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

    What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?
    "Noisy" is a complete insult to those who have information and experience to add to these conversations. To accuse me of just being "Noisy"... well... clearly isn't "respectful"...

    It shows that the "Leadership" of this organization is covering their ears and saying "Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah"...

    Again, complete B.S. I've put YEARS of time, energy, and money into DUE DILIGENCE on this topic, racing, researching, buying motors, testing, etc., and have been provided EVERYTHING to the public. Our club has well over 3-seasons of racing under these rules as well... 30+ Members, EVERY class being P-LTD... that's a LOT of experience and data.

    My contributions are way more than just "Noise", UNLESS you simply don't CARE about the facts and have NO INTENTION of listening to the members. "P-LTD will never happen in IMPBA"... Yup, you've said it before and NOTHING will change your mind.

    When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Keeley View Post
    I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

    What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?
    Kind of like a political poll. A small sample of the electorate to determine a trend.

    And last time I'm aware this subject came up on Facebook/Elite RC Boats... Majority there also thought IMPBA should have a Limited/Spec rule set similar to NAMBA.

    I feel it'd be hard to find more than a hand full of people (who actually race FE) who'd agree that IMPBA should not have Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.
    There maybe some debate as to what those rules should be... but the outright exclusion of the classes would not be popular.

    And that Terry is why it will not get to membership. Because they know that and they want their opinions on the subject to be the only ones that matter.
    Still thinking there's a term for that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Jordan View Post
    When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.
    Sure... that would be an acceptable answer.
    Have fun with that....

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Just read the entire thread. This has been said by many, just put it up to vote by members. I know most of us will respect what the majority of membership wants, why won't the IMPBA leadership?

    Bottom line the IMPBA exists for the members not the other way around.

    Just like in the real world, if your not happy with the current leadership, VOTE THEM OUT.

    The P limited classes are the bread and butter of most local clubs and should be represented nationally. The fact that they are not is absurd.

    I do enjoy reading everyones responses as most other forums are dead. So put it up for members to vote, it is no skin off any of the leaderships noses if it does or does not pass.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    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 thumbs up and goes out for a one year trial.
    No? All or nothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    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?
    Can a can size be a replacement for displacement? No? Ridiculous? You sure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    Some are already promoting Q Limited. Is that next?
    Is it?
    Last edited by Doug Smock; 10-02-2019 at 06:08 PM. Reason: typo
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    That is Doug trying to muddy up the discussion with bs.
    Have fun with that....

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by longballlumber View Post
    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?
    <SNIP>

    It actually was just a yes or no question but since you got all wound up over it here we go........

    You may have "read" Darin's research but seem to be choosing to not consider it whatsoever, determined to push what you want (quote- I don't agree with it. I don't agree with how its being done). Darin has repeatedly stated FACTS from his research and most likely the most experienced on here with P limited classes but let's just ignore that as well. And lastly we actually have an opportunity here to have a small piece of common ground with NAMBA (since they've already made the change and it's working) but nobody wants that? Nobody crosses over right?

    As for looking for the out of production Proboat/Dynamite motor yup sure was (and found a couple) because I was given a 100% race proven combo right down to what prop to run from a well known 1/10th scale guy so I could have a rock solid baseline to test the other motors I have sitting here without risking burning stuff up getting the initial set up right on the boat (I no longer have the disposable income I once had).

    I do find it funny how your and again I quote- "MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER" gets applied here on P limited but just a very short while back when a proposal got submitted to limit FE 1/8th scale cans to 40mm diameter, which would have eliminated to big 56mm Plett 370, you were against that and carried on and on until the proposal got stalled (at least we got a couple 40mm motors added to the motor list for "testing" one of which I will be trying in the new FE scale being built). With battery technology where it is now the big power that can be pulled from that Plett makes it unfair against the 40mm NEUs and Lehners and is the equivalent of allowing a 90 run with the 67s in the nitro scale class. But that is yet another unsettled and stalled proposal for another day.

    It has become apparent that like Darin and Terry said, nothing is going to change, at least not for the next 15 months.

    Done with this thread, no more wasting keys strokes on deaf ears and watching solid input from vastly experienced P limited racers get ignored and/or belittled. Gonna focus on D12 for now and the 37mm x 60mm limit we already adopted as a district but rest assured this is FAR from over.......
    Futaba Team Driver
    - IMPBA Hydro Technical Director -

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    1/8 Scale.. My apologies for the short derail, or should you Don ?
    Not speaking for Mr. Ball as he is quite capable of holding his own but.. As you know Mike went to work as he said he would and IIRC in a very short period of time published this.https://nebula.wsimg.com/f7b28fb053d...&alloworigin=1 Last we spoke he got nothing back from the membership.
    It has been in the Roostertail since then (July 2018?) and can be found in the rules tab on the site.. What more would you have him do? Test the motors in a Scale that he doesn't own? Squash the Plett with no alternative?

    The man is doing his job. Please send him the results of your testing.

    Thanks in advance for your patience fellas! I appreciate it.
    TOY BOAT RACER
    IMPBA Dist.13 Director
    IMPBA National Records Director 2009-2019
    IMPBA 19887CD
    NAMBA 1169

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dethow View Post
    Is there an easy way to tell if a motor is 2, 4 or 6 pole without taking it apart?

    Could you set a 57mm length limit on 6-pole motors and a 60mm limit on 2 and 4-pole motors?

    Maybe... just maybe... we have a happy medium here. As long as that can be tech'd.
    Probably can't be done easily thou... Right?
    Didn't get any feedback on this.
    Is there anything here? Or just impossible to do without pulling a motor apart?


    Is there any kind of motor testing device that can be plugged in between the esc and motor and be able to tell how many pole it is?
    I have a motor tester which runs off a 2S battery and you have to input the motor's number of poles in order to get accurate KV/RPM numbers. Could something like that be used/manipulated to figure out how many poles a motor has?

    Does this make any sense to motor/electronics people?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii-5U-ejGTs
    Last edited by dethow; 10-03-2019 at 12:02 AM.
    Have fun with that....

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Smock View Post
    No? All or nothin
    Wellll.....you've already explained that the people suggesting and writing the proposals don't represent the majority. Responding to the majority is what you want.....we aint it. Were running it and have for eons but the we aren't a majority. We're just noisy.....er. Apparently.
    The numbers are facts not speculation. I've been to a race or two. I've never ever heard someone say " ya know what we're racing?......super sport electric mono". A class that nobody has ever discussed, never run, never even seen has a better chance of sailing through than a proven concept? We truly are lost.
    Noisy person

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    Dave, maybe but it takes away the idiot level tech. For me, I'd hate to have to fiddle with figuring out the poles. Then a different set of dims for each pole count.
    Noisy person

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    Dave, maybe but it takes away the idiot level tech. For me, I'd hate to have to fiddle with figuring out the poles. Then a different set of dims for each pole count.
    I hear you... But if there is a way to do it then someone could provide a list of best equipment to do it with and step by step directions on how.
    And remember this probably wouldn't be needed for local club racing but would need to be available at National Events and Record Events. Again probably only for protests and for confirmation in terms of records.

    Now... what I think this would fix is what I perceive to be one of Mr. Ball's issues.
    I think he's kinda saying that what we have right now is enough and that's 56mm long 6-pole motors which provide the best performance (currently). He seems to be agreeing that current 60mm long 4-pole motors can't out perform those 56mm 6-pole motors. But I think he may see that if more copper was stuffed into that 60mm 4-pole motor it would become more similar in terms of performance with the 56mm 6-pole motors.

    So given all that... I think the real threat comes in when we consider what happens if a 60mm 6-pole motor that's stuffed with copper is made. It will out perform anything we currently have and may send these limited classes over the edge of what we desire in terms of speed.

    My proposed solution to that would be to limit 6-pole motors to 57mm length and limit 2 and 4-pole motors to 60mm length. I believe this would provide the most parity in terms of available performance from a wide range of motors of 2, 4 or 6 poles. This would limit speeds to what we're currently at, while providing more choices and keeping a performance parity among the choices.

    I have goose bumps that I may be on to something...
    Not as simple as basic dimensions to tech, but easier then pulling a motor out of a boat to weigh it. And then start factoring in with or without connectors and/or collet.
    This pole number test could be done with the motor still in the boat. All you'd have to do is remove the flex shaft, disconnect from esc and plug testing devices into the motor. It'd still be a black and white test. If it tests as a 2 or 4 pole motor then it's max length is 60mm. If it tests as a 6-pole motor then it's max length is 57mm.

    Discuss among yourselves...
    Have fun with that....

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Just keep it simple 60mm. Anything else will confuse everyone and as Terry K pointed out we are down to 1-2mm. Remember the Speed Control battles? Took 9 years to go away so when my grandson turns 21 he may see 60mm in IMPBA.
    As for motors please make me use my $50 Leopard. When we went to Huntsville last fall for NAMBA records we set up a P/lmt Cat. I tested the legal Promarine 6 poles and used an old AQ 2030 I got from Mike Z years ago I saved for such occasions. We lowered the record but I will tell you my crappy Leopard was 2-3mph faster and would have cut a second over the AQ. I tested 4 then legal NAMBA list motors and none were superior. I also have run several motors using a Castle data logger and don't see much difference in amps or RPM with 4-6 pole motors. The stop watch determines what we actually race. I have AQ, Promarine, TP, Castle 1412 SSS and Leopards in my box and the cheapest motors are in my personal boats.
    Mic

    Mic Halbrehder
    IMPBA 8656
    NAMBA 1414

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    555

    Default

    What I am going to type here has little to do with P/limited so don't read any further if P/limited is your focus.

    Since Doug S. has brought up Q/limited twice I have to clarify as he seems to think we need to fear some radical changes in the works. The FE racers in Florida have 5 classes in our regular NAMBA D-3 point schedule. P/lmtd cat and mono has 75% of the turnout. Full P & Q run combined Cat and Mono's to make the numbers for a class. We also are promoting 2 FE only specialty races in addition. Without P/lmtd there would not be FE events period.
    So some of us who race decided to try a Q/lmtd format locally at our specialty events and see where it goes. We decided to make it simple 40X74 single motor, 4-6S and no length limit. The primary rational was COST,AMPS and ESC's. On 6s with a limited can size you can use inexpensive equipment. Many potential boats are collecting dust on shelves. In testing with a 40X74 Leopard I see 120-140 amps max. (40X82mm 150-200+ amps) So a T-180 should be more than reliable and not scare away anyone. We allow 4S to give some mild Full P's a place. Remember Full P or Q you are going to face guys with 40X100+mm motors and speedys in the $400-600 range. Also twins are showing up both P and Q legal in NAMBA. Needless to say people are not flocking to build them. Q/lmtd gives P/lmtd racers a place to move up without breaking the bank. Larger boats will also stay upright in rougher water.
    The limited power also give some of the popular RTR's, Sonicwake, Spartans,Pursuit and Genesis (No length restriction) a place with minimal cost. How many of those are in your area and could compete as a limited?
    Is can size the answer? Well it seems to be working so give us some time to try this LOCAL CLASS and we will take the lumps. So don't say run what you want locally then use it as a scare tactic in a national rule discussion.
    Mic

    Mic Halbrehder
    IMPBA 8656
    NAMBA 1414

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Mic,
    Sounds like a good thought process to "get more boats on the water and more butts in the stand."
    I would put a mild cost TFL Ariane in that race.
    Good job NAMBA D-3
    Have fun with that....

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    8,635

    Default

    Can someone tell me why all the IMPBA clubs are running "limited" style classes, but dont want to approve a limited class? Doesn't it make sense to run a standardized format across the organization?
    Steven Vaccaro

    Where Racing on a Budget is a Reality!

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,696

    Default

    A little history....

    Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

    Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

    Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

    I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

    Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

    By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

    I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

    If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

    Should go back in Monday.
    Noisy person

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Vaccaro View Post
    Can someone tell me why all the IMPBA clubs are running "limited" style classes, but dont want to approve a limited class? Doesn't it make sense to run a standardized format across the organization?
    Well about 1.5 years ago there were a couple members of IMPBA leadership who stated limited/spec classes cause drama/controversy that the BODs felt it'd be in the best interest of the organization to stay clear of and therefore they just wanted to let the rules for those classes be decided at the club level.

    That is a somewhat responsible take on what had been going on regarding rules discussions for NAMBA P-Limited classes. However... I'm not keeping score but I think IMPBA is seeing a lot more drama/controversy by not allowing some version of those classes in the rule book. Haven't seen any drama in the NAMBA discussions in about a year at least. Why? Because their leadership allowed their membership to bring resolution to the issue.

    Additional drama/controversy will ensue for IMPBA if they ever again allow the classes which THEY don't want in the rule book to run for IMPBA National Champion Awards. Not allowed per the rule book.

    So to review. They don't want the drama... which has caused them more drama, currently causes them more drama and will cause them additional drama in the future. And they will never be able to get as many FE racers or support FE Nationals Events (legally) like NAMBA can.

    But trust in the BODs... everything would be great if it wasn't for those pesky/noisy members.
    Last edited by dethow; 10-03-2019 at 11:16 AM. Reason: Spelling/Grammer
    Have fun with that....

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    A little history....

    Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

    Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

    Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

    I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

    Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

    By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

    I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

    If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

    Should go back in Monday.
    That was a great post... THANK YOU TERRY

    Someone should copy this into International Waters, Facebook - Elite RC Boats and any other forums which could help spread the word to IMPBA membership and encourage them to let their voice be heard. Steve, you should pin Terry's post to get as many eyes on it as possible.

    And with that... I'd suggest this thread just be closed so the drama and debate can end while we sit back and see what happens.
    Last edited by dethow; 10-03-2019 at 11:27 AM.
    Have fun with that....

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Davis View Post
    A little history....

    Before MMEU left NAMBA in favor of IMPBA back in 2017 we had discussions with multiple people at the IMPBA BOD level. We were asked to get limited done. It was time. We were also asked about maybe doing a nats. Did and did. Scolded for it. BUT! Encouraged to be patient. "Guys are at least talking about it now. Gathering information. We'll get it. Be patient." Accept they haven't got it. 2 years of "patience" and still no closer.

    Asked again by racers and event hosts......."hey, how come you guys don't have rules in the book for this? It's always the most popular. Pitter patter. Let's git at er'." Not my yob?

    Tried again but with the intention of matching what NAMBA was doing in an effort to parallel and maybe just maybe have harmony between the two books. Who knows....maybe racers would attend races associated with both organizations. There aren't that many of us to begin with. Ignoring each other is foolish IMO. Neither organization is the devil. I know.....blasphemy. I did not consult Mike on it because I already knew his opinion. It's a minority opinion. No I didn't poll every member of IMPBA. I do know an FE racer or two that are turning laps. Again, went exactly as expected. I pulled it. Wasn't worth the ensuing debate. The debate raged on anyway.

    I did re-write it to make the length part clearer. Can plus bearing. Yada yada. Words n' stuff. Never printed it. Seemed DOA. The BOD turns to the director for guidance on things they're not familiar with. That's not weird. If I was a DD and an LSG proposal came up I would have to ask the LSG director "what's the deal with this?". If the gas director was solidly against it and had what seemed valid reasoning I wouldn't be inclined to doubt him. What the heck do I know about gas? Nutt'n. Pretty much where we were and where we still are on limited. They ask, hear "it's crap" and it gets tabled. Not weird.

    Now I've been asked by many racers (minority apparently) to get the revision back in there. I was also asked by 3 directors to get this done and multiple even asked how they could help.

    By retracting it I only made for more controversy. Sorry fellas. I blew it. Frustration on my part but still I blew it. I've survived everything from the introduction of brushless motors to the addition of Lithium polymer to the rule books. Wears a person down.

    I'll re-submit and let the chips land where they may. I'll rest easy knowing I tried. If IMPBA is crippled by it then so be it. I will say, I'm completely over debating it. Done.

    If yer an FE racer and this is something you want.....contact your district director so that he or she knows where you stand on it. You don't have to be a director to be "involved". Those guys are elected to represent us. They actually want to do that. They volunteered to rep their district members. It's the gig. If they never hear from us they don't know what we think. For that matter......if you think the whole thing is absolute folly tell them that too. Either way, "go or no go" has to be up to us, the members.

    Should go back in Monday.


    There ya go, something constructive WILL come out of this conversation.

    I don't blame you for being totally frustrated and pulling your original proposal, I'm worn out by it and I'm only ankles deep! It's growing pains I think, technology is changing so fast for you guys it's tough for the rules to keep up. Then when you have so many people involved it's like herding cats. We both know about that!

    I think you'll get somewhere this time, it sounds like the BOD have more info on the subject and are ready to make something happen.

    At the VERY LEAST I think they should send it out to the membership for a vote, that will be the true gauge of the popularity of such a rule.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •