Restrictor Plate racing

[Randy Naylor]

Due to the higher cost and maintenance problems with the UL-1 motors, pro Boat and the other motors we should allow any motor and restrict the speed of the boat with GPS on board. We should find the fastest boat and that is the max speed. Then it would become a racers race. All boats would have to have a working GPS on board at all times. If the boat went over the speed limit it would be disqualifyed.

Then it would more fair to every one and the old motors that are sitting in the closet could be used! This is for NAMBA ONLY.

[Don Wollard]

That's an option Randy, indeed. But how the heck would you (anyone) get a spec rule changed? Realistically....plus how long such take?

[john p gross]

if you set a speed limit,how could you call that racing? once the boats are all set,everyone would be going in circles at the top speed limit.

[raptor347]

Randy,
OK, my spec rigger hits 67mph reliably on a UL-1 motor. Everyone else can now go throw more motor in their boats to try and hit that number. In essence, throw money at it to make up for lack of tuning skills.

If my boat is the bench mark and we can run any motor, what's keeping me from swapping to a hotter motor and setting the new bench mark at 75mph?

Or do we pick a max speed and that becomes the performance wall for the class? It'll be a real challenge to get around a boat that runs right at the speed limit at every point on the course with one that only hits max at the end of the straits. The tech is there to build the ultimate constrictor plate boat right now, in fact I have everything I need in the shop.

I don't know about D-9, but up here we're required to run the rules for a season to get the bugs worked out before they even come up for a vote at the district level.


Don,
Here's the Rule Change process strait from the NAMBA rule book. It takes a bit of time and effort, but anyone can start the rule change process. Ultimately passing is up to the entire membership.

2. Racing Rule Additions, Deletions, or Changes
a. The NAMBA General Membership shall vote by ballot on proposals
regarding Racing, Racing related issues, or Competition topics.
b. Proposed rule changes must be submitted to the District Director in the district
in which the submitting member resides.
c. Upon receipt of said proposal, the District Director will put the matter to a
vote within his district. This vote can occur at any time during the year as
deemed appropriate by the Director but should be handled in a timely manner.
The exact method of said vote can be handled in whatever manner is normally
followed for voting within that particular district.
d. Upon successful passage of the proposal within the district, the district
director will forward the proposal to the NAMBA office along with a
statement by the District Director that the proposal has passed within his
district and that the district desires to have the proposal sent to the general
membership for voting.
e. Proposals may be submitted to the NAMBA office at any time during the year
as long as the previous three steps have been adhered to.
f. After receipt of a proposal by the NAMBA office, it will be sent to the
NAMBA Board of Directors. The Board will review the proposal to insure
proper wording and consistency with other already existing rules.
g. After the Board of Directors has reviewed the proposal the NAMBA office
will send out the proposal to the membership for voting. The proposal will
normally be sent out with the next regular mailing of the newsletter, but
special mailings may be utilized if deemed necessary. In addition, the
proposals and ballots may be made available to the membership by
publication on the NAMBA web page.
h. Members will be given adequate time to receive the ballot, consider the
propositions, and cast their votes. Normally a period of 45 days from the date
mailed would be considered ample time for this to take place.
i. Only members in good standing at the time of the vote will be permitted to
vote. All classifications of members will permitted to vote, including adult
members, family members, and junior members.
j. Members will be permitted to return their votes to the NAMBA office by
mail, fax, or email as long as it is able to be adequately determined that the
vote is coming from a member in good standing and as long as the vote is
received by the voting deadline.
k. The NAMBA office will receive and compile the votes. The NAMBA office
may designate another entity to receive and compile the votes should this be
deemed necessary.

[photohoward1]

No one asked. Randy, what high cost? Maintenance? It's made to eventually be thrown away. As said in a previous thread...Don't over amp it and it will last a long time. Want a reliable motor? Buy a Neu 1515 and limit it to 50 amps. It will run forever. BTW. Not a good idea. If a Ul1 motor is high cost then you might have to rethink the hobby. Sorry about the tough love Randy..

[lohring]

See this post for a similar idea. People here would rather use a component as the fuse than use a real fuse like electric airplane racers.

Lohring Miller

[PropNut]

If you are destroying UL-1 and ProBoat motors, you are over amping them. With these motors, we are currently running resiticor plate racing. There is nothing wrong with current rules.

[JfromJAGs]

Not arguing about right or wrong, but as the rules are, you are not running "restrictor plate racing".

It is "limited racing", as the motors are limited to a certain selection. But that's it. The motors are not restricted as a typical restrictor plate would do it - restricting the air flow, thus possible fuel flow and in the end power output.

I think what Randy was asking for is a solution that limits the power of these motors per rules to an amount that's safe for them - without the risk or even possibility to over amp and destroy them.

Technologically similar to a restrictor plate would be a current limiter, a device that would measure the current and then automatically throttles down if you are over the limit. Some (expensive) car ESCs got this feature. It's used as a torque limiter, to prevent wheel spin, but basically its a power restrictor.

When certain KVs are given, then another rather simple way is to limit props to certain types. Thats how we do in Germany for these type of classes. With the prop types (and sizes) we can control the current to reasonable values for the motors. Per rules, not per your ability to slow yourself down to currents that is safe for the motor.

Joerg

[Darin Jordan]

Originally Posted by JfromJAGs

When certain KVs are given, then another rather simple way is to limit props to certain types. Thats how we do in Germany for these type of classes. With the prop types (and sizes) we can control the current to reasonable values for the motors. Per rules, not per your ability to slow yourself down to currents that is safe for the motor.

Joerg

How do you tech these props??

[JfromJAGs]

Well, in our case that was very simple: we only allowed Graupner carbon props of the K series up to 42mm size for mono and up to 43.5mm for hydro.

For your limited classes a selection of Aquacraft (Grimracer) or Proboat props could do the trick. Just sharpened and balanced, but not modified. Or maybe even better, a limited selection of Octura props - or whatever you think is a good selection for the classes.

You could tech the props with a mold/ a print of the pressure side, made out of epoxy plasticine to check shape and pitch.

Joerg

[lohring]

Our club did that with the "stock" UL-1 class. At first only the plastic prop that came with the boat was allowed. Then that was upgraded to sharpened and balanced Grim racer props that were drawn from a hat at the start of the race day. Currently, one scale club is trying to run electric boats with nitro boats by limiting prop diameter on the electrics. All are workable solutions.

I still believe that current limiters are a good solution if their characteristics are suitable and the costs are reasonable. FAI limiters from Neu cost $50, but they may not be exactly what we need. The advantage of limiters is that they encourage better hull and prop designs along with good setups while allowing a wide equipment selection.

Lohring Miller

[JfromJAGs]

I prefer an indirect power limitation for the restricted/limited classes. We do this by limiting the rpm and the props. From an experienced rule maker point of view we can choose the equipment to operate at its best efficiency, thus with minimal stress. That makes a very good school for the drivers too, you learn to understand boats and setups instead of pushing equipment. You learn how to drive in a very equal competition, nobody feels he can't win because of the equipment - or money.

Joerg

[lohring]

I agree with the "stock" class concept. It does make for very equal racing and even experienced drivers have fun racing each other. I believe limited classes are the next step up. There there is more freedom in design and setup, but costs are kept reasonable by limiting equipment.

The advantage of specifying particular motors and maybe speed controls is that that choices are restricted, simplifying the path for new racers. The disadvantage is relatively expensive components are the fuse and the rules need to be continuously updated as manufacturers change equipment. A current limiter coupled with the number of cells is one simple way to manage power in a restricted class.

Lohring Miller

[Darin Jordan]

Originally Posted by lohring

The disadvantage is relatively expensive components are the fuse ... A current limiter coupled with the number of cells is one simple way to manage power in a restricted class.

Lohring Miller

I don't disagree that this would work, but the math doesn't...

People would have to spend an additional $50.00+ PER BOAT because a motor MIGHT burn up IF they weren't getting the help they needed or pushed the setup too far...

It sounds more expensive to me.

The P-Ltd formula is working now. Participation has increased, racing is close, racers are enjoying themselves, racers have options and choices, and racers aren't spending an unreasonable amount of money to do it.

People burned stuff up with LSH and drill motors... people burned stuff up with brushed motors.... people burned/burn stuff up with expensive brushless motors... people burn stuff up with cheap brushless motors... People burn stuff up in Spec SV-27 (as "Stock" class as it gets)...

There are "fuses" in Gas and Nitro as well, but they aren't putting artificial restrictions on those classes... And there, it would be much easier (exhaust restrictions, etc.)

What problem are we really trying to solve here?

[Darin Jordan]

Originally Posted by lohring

... and the rules need to be continuously updated as manufacturers change equipment.

The rules were written in a way to adapt to this situation, however.

28.D.1.d.

iii) In addition, the CD has the discretion to allow the following:

(a) An aftermarket motor that is a re-labeled and exact copy of any
approved motor.

(b) Any generational change of an approved motor, or a motor that
is used in a Ready To Run (RTR) offering from a manufacturer
that produces over 100 units of said offering, as long as there is
no more than a 5% increase in any of the following
manufacturers specifications as compared to any single
approved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating,
mass, and MSRP.

(c) The race flyer shall list additional allowed motors for the event

[JfromJAGs]

Originally Posted by lohring

I agree with the "stock" class concept. ... I believe limited classes are the next step up. There there is more freedom in design and setup, but costs are kept reasonable by limiting equipment.

Lohring Miller

"Stock" classes are the most restricted classes, yes. But they are not only very restricted, they are also usually "designed" by the rules makers to not stress the equipment. The last is the most important factor for the success of such classes.

"Limited" classes are not as much restricted, yes, but why is it not possible to follow the basic idea to design the rules in a way that the equipment is not stressed to or even beyond its limits? Actually it's a bit absurd to me to limit something and don't think the story to the end. In a way that this - whatever you limit by the rules - shall not acts as an expensive fuse. I mean, why have such fuses when it's possible to design rules for limited classes without such?

Joerg

[JfromJAGs]

Originally Posted by Darin Jordan

There are "fuses" in Gas and Nitro as well, but they aren't putting artificial restrictions on those classes... And there, it would be much easier (exhaust restrictions, etc.)

What problem are we really trying to solve here?

Beginning with the last question: Why does this thread exists? Why do similar threads exist? Maybe because not everyone is as happy as you with the rules?

Concerning the fuses and restrictions for Gas and Nitro. There are well thought and artificial restrictions in gas and nitro classes, like max. octane number or "no nitro" in gas fuel and so on. You could put nitro into gas fuel and increase the power output - but that would decrease the lifetime of the motors drastically.

Electric motors are similar to super charged combustion engines. You can crank up the power until they break within seconds - just put more load on an electric motor and it will consume the amps - and overheat. Gas and nitro motors for model boats are not super charged. So the problem does not exist for them as much as it does exist for FE. So it is difficult to compare the necessary restrictions to achieve similar results. But when you step back and take a unbiased view it is possible - in a different way, but possible.

Joerg

[Darin Jordan]

Originally Posted by JfromJAGs

Concerning the fuses and restrictions for Gas and Nitro. There are well thought and artificial restrictions in gas and nitro classes, like max. octane number or "no nitro" in gas fuel and so on. You could put nitro into gas fuel and increase the power output - but that would decrease the lifetime of the motors drastically.

Regardless... none of that is keeping guys from doing things light lightening parts to an absolute minimum, cranking compression, etc... Unless you expressly limit this stuff item by item, someone, somewhere, is going to do whatever it takes to gain an advantage.

In fact, my experience with all forms of racing is that, the more restricted the class, the more this is the case. The more it HAS to be the case in order to gain an advantage, which is, after all, the point... Unless all we are measuring is ones driving ability.

I'm not trying to argue about all these options... they are all viable, legit, etc...

But, I'll ask again... WHAT is the problem this thread is trying to solve??

[Darin Jordan]

Originally Posted by JfromJAGs

Maybe because not everyone is as happy as you with the rules?

Further... When has ANY set of rules made "everyone" happy??

[JfromJAGs]

Originally Posted by Darin Jordan

Further... When has ANY set of rules made "everyone" happy??

Although desirable, it's probably impossible to make everyone happy - I agree (in your words: I don't disagree) - but rules should be at least acceptable for everyone who wants to race. And if I understand the complaints correctly, then this might not be the case.

So it's appropriate to think about possible improvements - some solutions have been sketched. Just because there might not be the perfect solution, thinking should not be abandoned in general. At least this is what I was taught...