The Rum Runner Racing Fast Electric R/C Boating Forums

Go Back   The Rum Runner Racing Fast Electric R/C Boating Forums > General Discussion > Debates, Racing Rules and Racing Politics
Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Debates, Racing Rules and Racing Politics This is the place for the debates!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:49 AM
Darin Jordan's Avatar
Darin Jordan Darin Jordan is offline
Sr. Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 4,285
2013 NAMBA Propwash-FE Proposals

2013 NAMBA Propwash-FE Proposal

Proposals:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...ls_2013-01.pdf

Propwash:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...sh/2013/March/


There are 5 FE rule proposals for your consideration. There is also a 1/2A (.12) Nitro power class proposal, 1/2A Sport Hydro inclusion, proposals for racing rule/course updates, and a proposal that affects what type of driver figure is required for a Gas Thunderboat.


In summary:

P-Ltd ProBoat motors are now manufactured under the Dynamite label. There are 2 proposals that address this, including updating the 1/10th scale rules to use a similar P-Ltd "Table" that lists approved motors in a more specific/clear manner.

There are also proposals addressing a Cat class, eliminating "Offshore" records (mainly because of the redundancy a specific Cat Class will add to the rulebook), and integrating FE's legal sprint course into NAMBA's Gas/Nitro 1/6th course dimensions.

MAKE SURE YOU VOTE!
__________________
Darin E. Jordan
Puget Sound Fast Electrics - Renton, WA


Model Boats
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:38 AM
JfromJAGs's Avatar
JfromJAGs JfromJAGs is offline
Sr. Skunk
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,668
While I can't follow the argument Offshore should not have SAW or 2-lap records as it runs for 4min only, I do think the creation of a new hull category "Catamaran" is a much better idea, as it does not combine Monos with Catamarans into one class. So no need to argue about that.

The question is, if you really need to DELETE the existing Offshore records or if it would be a better idea to "rename" Offshore to Catamaran in the record lists?

Running at SAWs with catamarans has a quite long tradition and deleting those efforts may not be fair in the sense of promoting the hobby. Actually I think it will pi... off quite some of those who ran cats in the Offshore class in the past.

I'm sure it can be traced if a Offshore record was set with a Catamaran or a Mono. I think at least those records set with Catamarans should be moved to the new Catamaran class. I think if you would do this, then this would increase the acceptance of a new Catamaran class.

One more question: do you want to run Catamarans around the regular 5 lap oval as well? Or is this new class only for SAW and 2-lap records and endurance racing with Catamarans means they will compete in Offshore?

Joerg
__________________
I'm responsible for what I say - but not for what you understand.

Last edited by JfromJAGs; 03-30-2013 at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-30-2013, 10:03 AM
Jay Turner's Avatar
Jay Turner Jay Turner is offline
Infidel
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,674
I'm with Joerg here. The existing records should be migrated to the new Catamaran class as long as they were set with a cat (I believe all were). I can't support rule change #8 because of this. Too bad, I like the rest of it.

Our club runs Offshore boats on the oval course, it is great fun even if there is no "official" rule to allow it. Another silly oversight in the rule book.

BTW, a big thanks to whomever recommended deleting:
"The windshield or cockpit will be located no further forward than 65% of the hullís length when measured from the transom" from the catamaran rules! Much more inclusive.



.
__________________
.
.
.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:15 PM
JfromJAGs's Avatar
JfromJAGs JfromJAGs is offline
Sr. Skunk
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,668
I know there have been fights over rule changes in the past, but almost completely silence makes me think too. Are there any racers in the US left?

Joerg
__________________
I'm responsible for what I say - but not for what you understand.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:31 PM
Darin Jordan's Avatar
Darin Jordan Darin Jordan is offline
Sr. Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 4,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by JfromJAGs View Post
I know there have been fights over rule changes in the past, but almost completely silence makes me think too. Are there any racers in the US left?

Joerg
I tend to agree with what you and Jay mentioned concerning OS records...

Other than that... what's to argue about??

I think the Thunderboat driver rule is completely retarded for a non-scale class... it's suppose to be FUN, not SCALE! Scale Snobs are trying to get involved... But not worth arguing about... just vote no...

Anything worth arguing about that I missed??
__________________
Darin E. Jordan
Puget Sound Fast Electrics - Renton, WA


Model Boats
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-03-2013, 06:02 PM
Jay Turner's Avatar
Jay Turner Jay Turner is offline
Infidel
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
I know there have been fights over rule changes in the past, but almost completely silence makes me think too. Are there any racers in the US left?
Darin posted this on the wrong board to get much argument. Good thinking. :thumup:





.
__________________
.
.
.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-04-2013, 07:23 AM
JfromJAGs's Avatar
JfromJAGs JfromJAGs is offline
Sr. Skunk
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,668
For these rule proposals there is not much to argue about, except deleting at least 12 years of Offshore SAW records.

Me too I don't want to see fights over rule changes as we have seen them in the past and when I read how some rule debates develop on OSE, I don't want to see this either, but on the other hand, if these proposals are everything you guys think is required to adjust the existing rules to what is done at Saturday/Sunday club meetings then I'm afraid FE is pretty much done.

The last big rule changes in 2006/2007 have put FE on a new level - powerwise and also pricewise. With the economical situation now I doubt many have the ability and/or will to play on such a level, thus the Limited classes are more and more popular. But also some "small" classes - these on club level only, as there are no NAMBA rules for these.

The proposed rule changes for nitro indicate a similar situation: to reduce costs there is a proposal for a new 0.129 cu. in. class, which then will run smaller and thus cheaper boats.

I'm looking at the situation from pretty far away, but sometimes this might open your view to a more general sight.

1. I think leaving all smaller entry classes to club level rules is not the best way to go. Having them in the NAMBA rule book would make it much easier to attend races of clubs not too far away - which is basically the intention of a national organization: give a rule backbone so everyone can run everywhere whithout rebuilding his armada.

2. I understand that there should be a FE classes on a power levels to compete against gas and nitro boats. With LiPo this is more then possible now. The question is if this requirement should affect what has been the strength of FE in the past: quite fast small but environment friendly boats, at least boats much smaller than what can be powered by a nitro engine.

All around Europe the so called Mini classes become more and more popular: boats of about 1lb weight. These are the counterparts to the small and very popolar EP planes, really cheap and still quite fast. The small riggers reach speeds in excess of 50mph and still run for 5min on 2s1p 2200-2500mAh batteries (110g max. pack weight). I think these boats fit better into the current time than 4s2p $1500 boats.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a place for 10s2p Catamarans or Monos, but the LiPo technology opened the possible bandwidth from small to big and I think this is not reflected well on the small side in the current NAMBA rules.

Again, this is the view of someone outside, but I guess (and hope) still worth a thought.

Joerg
__________________
I'm responsible for what I say - but not for what you understand.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-12-2013, 07:47 PM
RaceMechaniX RaceMechaniX is offline
Racer
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 212
Prior to the records discussion there also a proposal to combine Q, S and T classes as their popularity at heat racing contests has dwindled over the years. In heat racing one could argue there is not a big advantage over a T boat compared to a Q or S boat. This primarily based on what shows up to races versus what one could build. The opposite occurs in SAW where boats are specially designed around a cell limit. On point are the cats which at least in NAMBA are tailored to the cell count. A single Q cat will never be competitive against a full twin T power system. In my own experience the riggers are a little different where the complexities of a twin donít balance the power advantages like the cats. After some very informative discussions with the proposer of the combined class rule he pulled it off the ballot.

There was some discussion over what would happen to the old records offline if the cat class rule passed and the offshore SAW classes went away. One option was to carry over the Offshore records as most were set with Cats with the exception of N2 which I hold my with 26" mono. The other option would be to archive the old records and the cat class would have all open records. For those that set records with cats in the Offshore class it would be a bit disappointing not to have their records transfer over and to have to go after them again. I wouldnít lose much sleep over the N2 Offshore record because it should be higher with a cat anyways. The flipside of this is the new rule would also affect 2-lap records which I personally have a lot to lose (N2, P, Q, S, T) seeing as N2, P and Q were all set with monoís. For 2-lap a good mono can be just as competitive as a cat single or twin. For this reason I would prefer to have the records archived. Hopefully we will come to a reasonable outcome both on the class restructuring and how to handle the records.

As far as the 1/2A nitro class a lot of it has to do with popularity of small boats particularly riggers and the available low cost engines and available hulls. NAMBA will also then parallel IMPBA for sizes offered allowing racers to travel to one anotherís competitions. This is certainly a class that could be considered entry level given the size, speed and cost, but it also attracts a lot of seasoned racers who enjoy the challenge of fine tuning and boats that donít consume $40 in fuel and plugs every time they enter the water.

Tyler
__________________
Tyler Garrard
NAMBA 639/IMPBA 20525
N2 Mono 76.3mph, P Mono 80.6mph, Q-Hydro 128.3mph, S-Hydro 126.6mph
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.