Last chance on a Sport Hydro rule for 2006

[drobie]

OK, so I'm a glutton for punishment.

Even though there is only a week left, District 4 would still like to take one last shot at submitting something even if it's not perfect.

Reasons:

1. It would legitimize N2 Sport, which in many parts of the country, seems to be in the process of replacing O Sport.

2. The NAMBA Exec Sec would like to see proposals grouped and we are already proposing the 1/8 mi. course.

3. The current rule grey and generates conflict.

IMO, paragraphs 2a-e ought to be all that is needed. We all know what the intent is.

NOTE: The only thing in this draft that is mine is para 2e, which is an attempt to unglue some sticking points. All of the rest came from people with far more experience than I have.

Last Chance Draft, 03-07-06 The date will reflect current revision as suggestions keep getting implemented.

It's too late to discuss big changes. I just want to know if you'd vote for this or not. Small corrections will be considered.

 

[jayt]

I'll support it Doug. It isn't perfect and not everyone will be happy - but those are impossible goals anyway. It is the first real improvement in these classes for a long time, and is light years ahead of the mess we have now. Good work!

 

[jstolz]

Doug,

I would vote for it.

Jay

 

[AlanN]

Sure reads better than the previous slop.

Heading in the right direction.

 

[Randy Naylor]

A No Vote, Make the Eagle a out law hull, Wrong!

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I would vote for it.

It is far better than the present set of sport rules.

In spite of some ramblings on other forums, I doubt any true Sport hull that is presently out there is made illegal by this rule:

"e. The maximum width of the transom shall be no less than 70% of the width between the inside edges of the front sponson planning surfaces. The transom will be no wider than the narrowest portion of the afterplane. Wings attached to the aft portion of the hull may be used but will not be considered as part of the transom width."

The small imperfections can be tackled individually at some later dates.

KW

 

[drobie]

A No Vote, Make the Eagle a out law hull, Wrong!

Randy, read paragraph 2e. It was specifically written with you and and owners of some other existing hulls in mind.

If that doesn't work, then any CD worth his weight in fried ESC's will allow the Eagle under this clause:

"in the spirit of" and "intent" will be the guiding principals.

Kevin. I think the 3e has been fixed by suggestions of some folks that are more into the technical stuff than I am.

Still time for ironing out. Newsletter deadline is March 1.

 

[brooks93]

so I take it 2a would also allow twin wing boats

 

[Jeff]

A DPI T-Plus is leagle, so why wouldn't any other twin wing be?

 

[drobie]

I think this covers the mutant teenage ninja hulls that many are running or want to run.

"2e. Exceptions to paragraph 2d and related technical paragraphs will be allowed if a boat is a mass produced scale model closely resembling a full scale hydroplane that raced for more than one season. Examples: Proboat Miss Budweiser, H&M Bud Twin Wing, BBY War Eagle, DPI and H&M T-Plus."

The goal was to have some technical restrictions for the analytical types, but to make the "spirit" and "intent" the meat of the rule. Another way to put it: if it's a scale model it's legal in Sport Hydro, but all SH's aren't necessarly scale.

 

[AlanN]

Boy Doug,

You sure are taking alot of flak on the other board from someone.

Stick to your guns man. All the real racers I have spoken too like your pro.

I noticed the ones who don't like it either don't race or have little experience.

 

[raptor347]

Doug,

Please tell me you're submiting this. The other board is up to its usual behavior, so ignore it.

I'm all for the change.

Brian

 

[brooks93]

got my support

 

[drobie]

I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate the support. With the submission deadline a few days away, I feel like I'm getting ready to walk into Baghdad. h34r:

I don't believe the lastest person to chime in and trash change has even read the thing.

 

[AlanN]

Your pro makes it hard to contest the usual crap that has been haggled with over the past years.

Guess you popped someones balloon Doug.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Now that rule 3 f has been massaged a bit to read:

The minimum width of the transom shall be no less than 60% of the width between the inside edges of the front sponson planing surfaces. The transom will be no wider than the narrowest portion of the afterplane. Wings attached to the aft portion of the hull may be used but will not be considered as part of the transom width.

If there is a rule 2 d that reads: Boats which do not resemble real full-scale designs (i.e. outriggers, modified outriggers, canards, tunnels or catamarans) will not be allowed to race as Sport Hydroplanes.

That makes rule 3 f redundant. Does it not?

I would no longer support the rules change as a package, for this reason.

Frank Hearn has had a small sport hydro out, for years now, that is modeled after the classic Lauterbach drop-sponson designs. The Hearn hull has a 4-26/32" tunnel and a transom that is 2-1/2" (at the bottom of the non-trips). A minimum transom width of 60% (of tunnel width) would make these Hearn hydros and any scale or semi-scale Lauterbach hull illegal. The 60% number was reached without thorough investigation into what hulls are already out there and running.

Do we only care about hulls that H & M, BBY, DH, Bandit, and very few other "High Volume" manufacturers produce?

It would be a shame for Frank to find that his model molds are now for an illegal boat. Frank doesn't deserve to get hosed, especially after all of the massaging that has been done for the freaking War Eagle.

Everyone out there with a Hearn hull (or a Lauterbach model) would find their hull illegal for racing, and just to have a redundancy (3 f) in the rules. That would be senseless.

KW

 

[AlanN]

Well I Will agree with Kevin....I think Doug had tried to be as inclusive as possible....and to have that last bit changed for Frank should be noted.....especially since(as prev stated) there has been much massaging and tweaking to allow other hulls over the border of the initial rules. Franks just too nice if a guy to start ranting and raving though over all this.

 

[drobie]

I actually agree with you. I personally don't need anything more than paragraph 2 to know what can be run.

Some people are more analytic. and wanted all the friggin' measurements. They were motivated by a protest 2 years ago. The goal of the proposal was to please both styles of perception.

I think something like 17 hulls were measured to come up with the number. It was originally 65% after all the measurements, but some were close and a margin was tossed in.

Why would Frank's hulls not be covered under paragraph 2e? Does the word "mass" need changing? Should "related technical paragraphs" be more specific?

Call me Kevin. 800-792-3590 I want us to fix this.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Don't have time to call, got to go to work in minutes.

Rule 2e could be read as covering it, at least as you or I read it. I just can't keep up with the changes (in just the last week or two).

The funny thing is that 2e wouldn't be needed to make the Hearn hull legal, if rule 3f didn't make it illegal, while rule 3f does nothing at all itself since, rule 2d already makes the outriggers (that rule 3f is trying to prevent) illegal. Redundant.

KW

 

[jayt]

Frank Hearn has had a small sport hydro out, for years now, that is modeled after the classic Lauterbach drop-sponson designs. The Hearn hull has a 4-26/32" tunnel and a transom that is 2-1/2" (at the bottom of the non-trips). A minimum transom width of 60% (of tunnel width) would make these Hearn hydros and any scale or semi-scale Lauterbach hull illegal.

If the transom came to a point on the deck - would that mean it has zero width? I think not. Lose the word minimum in 3f if you want, but I have one of Frank's hydros, and I believe it's legal according to the rules Doug has posted.