IMPBA noise rule & dB meters

[piper_chuck]

I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO GET A HANDLE ON THE DB ISSUE

I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS, CLUBS THAT DQ'S BOATS BASED ON A PIECE OF TEST EQ (DB METER) COULD BECOME A LEGAL ISSUE...

LOL, thanks for the laugh! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can imagine such a case. Plaintif to judge: "your honor, they wouldn't let me play toy boats with them because they said mine's too loud. Please make them let me play!" :wacko:

 

[teddyd]

IT'S FUNNY TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHEN IT COME TO LIABLE.

WITH OPENING A CAN OF WORMS, THERE'S A CLUB IN DIST. 2 THAT WAS TAKEN TO COURT FOR LIABLE

AND LOST. THE COURT TOLD THE CLUB TO PAY UP, THE CLUB WROTE HIM A CHECK. HA HA!!!

 

[Ron Olson]

Still, there is going to be a problem with people not knowing what their dB level is until they travel to a race.

Even if you're using an easily available Radio Shack dB meter and you get under 92, it doesn't mean that when you go to a distant race that you're going to be legal there. My .21 mono reads at 87 dB here but if I go elsewhere, what could it read? One pond that I run at, I can heard an echo once I shut down the engine yet at another, nothing. You can't tell me that the surrounding environment has nothing to do with dB levels which may or not had an effect on the readings at E-Ville.

Who will want to travel a long way to find what was more than legal at home isn't at a distant site?

I'm not against a muffler rule as my race boats have had quiet pipes since day one.

I know without checking that my .45 mono won't be legal as I can hear the vibrations from the hull. That one will need work before it hits a race site again. I'll have to change the motor mount but I don't feel that it will be enough. Looking for ways to quiet the hull is going to be the challenge. How people are going to quiet the air intake will be interesting also.

 

[teddyd]

I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO GET A HANDLE ON THE DB ISSUE

I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS, CLUBS THAT DQ'S BOATS BASED ON A PIECE OF TEST EQ (DB METER) COULD BECOME A LEGAL ISSUE...

LOL, thanks for the laugh! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can imagine such a case. Plaintif to judge: "your honor, they wouldn't let me play toy boats with them because they said mine's too loud. Please make them let me play!" :wacko:

ACTUALLY IT WOULD GO,,, JUDGE TO THE DEFENDANT,,,WHAT ARE YOUR QUANTIFCATION WITH SOUND PRESSURES AND NOW EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!

 

[steve wood]

Brian's post is pretty close. There were a lot more boats that were over the limit but were not warned. All of the F hydro drawed a warning except two I believe. Were they able to comply yes. Why because 90% of them layed dead in the water on there next rounds trying to comply with the noise issuse. Now do you really think that there is a true US 1 in F hydro. I don't think so, it was a injustice to the F hydro drivers and a injustice to the winner. And to be honest I can not even tell you who won the US 1 in F hydro which is sad.

Now I know that there has been a lot of things said about the Evansville club and that there has been a lot of thing said from the Evansville club. Is all of this their fault, I don't think so. They were just hand this tub of Sh--t with this screw up rule. Now was there a problem at the lake site? Yes, but what caused it I do not know. The real fault falls with the board. They had the power to correct this before it got out of hand on Sunday morning before the event started at the board meeting that Bill called on the subject. It was a know fact there was a problem with the lake site on the noise issuse. There was only two people on the board that wanted to not DQ racers and make everyone mad at this event. And of course it was the small boat runners on the board that prevaled. To go into a event this big knowing that there is a problem and with the amount of money that was spent that week only to turn ones head to say well the problem does not affect me was wrong.

Mark Bullard

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tony Jacuzzi]

What a croc of **** this discussion has turned into.

1 - The Evansville club performed MAGNIFICENTLY at the 2006 Internats and upheld the rules as instructed by the BOD.

2 - The BOD on the start of the racing at the Internats held a meeting on the drivers stand, where we voted to uphold the rule that was passed by the membership as written. If I remember correctly there were (2) board members that voted to throw out the rule. It is still a mystery why we needed to have a vote on a rule that the IMPBA membership had approved, we didnt vote on any other racing rule, there should have been no vote at all.

3- Mark I like you man but you are part of the board and because a vote doesnt go your way you cant criticize the process. The same with your proposal at the Internats board meeting, you didnt have a second .. so what,, there was no conspiracy just that your idea wasnt supported at the time and you didnt have any support lined up before hand. We should always stand as one.

4- Line of logic 1 "My boat was legal at home..bla bla bla", line of logic 2 "the Radio shack DB meters are not full OSHA-ANSI-FBI-CIA-RCMP calibrated and certified therefore I couldnt have been over". Well I gues those were the same not calibrated POS units that said you were legal too. You dont need a DB meter to tell me when a boat is loud in the hot pits or when its making a pass on the lake. All you racerss can hear the really loud boats without even trying you can see all the guys that are working in their tents stop and look at the lake when a very loud boat goes by. We are all immune to the noise since we hear it constantly, now just imagine what the non boater thinks. And I would like to see the super cerified db numbers in the hot pits when the F boats and the twins are all starting up.. that in my opinion is dangerous deafening noise. Line of logic3 "its the dam keyboard racers or the non racers that voted for this rule". I dont care who voted i recived 60 votes on the rules proposal out of 200 plus members, I applaud them for voting.

5- Great credit to everyone that is participating in the noise committee and hoping that you are able to come up with a solution. Your hard work will be a benefit to everyone in the IMPBA.. congratulations and good luck in accomplishing this task.

Tony J

D2

 

[topfuel443]

Wow.....

After following all 18 pages of this pissing contest, I think Tony has summed up my feelings spot on. No wonder the 2007 internats dont have a home yet, much less getting people to run for office positions. After reading all of the crying, whining and blaming in this thread from a bunch grown men, I am not sure why anyone would want to race. I feel sorry for the Evansville club for getting bad publicity from this debacle.

~James "looking forward to running a few NAMBA races when we get back to ths states" Clegg

 

[Don Ferrette]

p.s don, what is the manufacture you are working with if you don't mind telling us?

I have promised not to do so until after testing these new designs is completed. h34r:

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Guys,

I've been going to more and more nitro races and as an outsider looking in (FE racer) I can pick out a loud boat pretty easy. Now don't bust my stones but how come you guys want to flirt with getting your boats just under the DB limit? IMHO some rules you just don't push, this seems to me to be one of those rules. Why not shoot for a mid 80s DB when setting your boats up? Is this that difficult to do? How about the total package? Maybe a bit of pour foam in the boat to help absorb some of the sound? Lower nitro content?

I don't mind the sound of the nitro boats, I love the way a well tuned twin sounds. But the thing is the nitro side of racing will suffer if the noise deal continues. I would think it's up to each racer to do his/her part by making **** sure their boats are well under the limit, not right at it.

I really enjoy racing with nitro and gas boaters, I would hate to see lost ponds and lost boaters because of this issue.

Paul.

 

[Don Ferrette]

I would think it's up to each racer to do his/her part by making **** sure their boats are well under the limit, not right at it.

Exactly. B)

 

[John Knight]

Wow.....

After following all 18 pages of this pissing contest, I think Tony has summed up my feelings spot on. No wonder the 2007 internats dont have a home yet, much less getting people to run for office positions. After reading all of the crying, whining and blaming in this thread from a bunch grown men, I am not sure why anyone would want to race. I feel sorry for the Evansville club for getting bad publicity from this debacle.

~James "looking forward to running a few NAMBA races when we get back to ths states" Clegg

I also totally agree with Gabe's and Tony's comments. I think it is a shame that Evansville is getting ripped so hard over this. They may have some unique issues with their site but to get crucified like they have is unreal. They would be crazy to ever host another internats. Some of our local guys were talking about the CMB club of doing it in the future and I'll tell it will never happen when I am in office. Not worth the aggravation from a bunch of "immature, can't have it my way guys."

The IMPBA membership voted for the noise reduction. The IMPBA board made the right decision to reaffirm that for the internats. To reneg on it against the membership voting that was made would not have been right. I also concur with the effort to refine the testing standards being used.

Paul - it is not that the noise reduction cannot be done, it can. The ways to do are shown by our European brothers. But the motivation is NOT there. I try to go a low as I can and not to the limit because I have lost much of the high pitched hearing range through boating. So I KNOW the damage it can do. It is a behavorial paradigm shift for many and they are too interested in complaining than putting their energy into the reduction. As others have said, be part of the solution or get out of the way and shut up. Refocus guys and bury this dead horse for good. Wailing on it any longer serves no constructive purpose. REFOCUS!!!

 

[Stuart Barr]

WOW.

I am glad to serve on the "committee" to try to resolve this noise issue. It is quite obvious that there is not a simple answer to this question. Many of you have some good ideas that will be considered. Consistancy of enforcement bothers me ALOT even after several weeks passing of the Nats. I have been told by several well after the fact that Evansville did not enforce the warnings" uniformly. Personally, I think they would have chased me into the port-o-lets to give my warning to me. Regardless, like many, I love this sport and will do what I can to further it. I challenge the rest of you to do the same.

 

[AWaddle322]

I would like to get the ball roling on a way to improve our current db rule. i am looking for constructive critcism of why any of my ideas would not work. I am not interested in hearing we do not need to fix the rule. I am not interested in hearing just got your boat to 85 db's. I am interested in peoples opinion of how to make a db rule work consistanly.

There has been some conversation about trying to make the radio shack db meter work. I personally do not believe that this is going to be a viable option as they are not self calabrating. I for one thought that maybe a once a year calabration would be surfice but after doing some research I have found that this is not viable. This quote is taken dirrectly from on osha guildline "Calibrate all noise-measuring instruments according to the manufacturer's instructions before and after each day of use and whenever the temperature or relative humidity changes significantly. " This can be viewed at the following website under Calibration http://www.environmental-center.com/articl.../article138.htm. In research of meters I have found that significant tempature or releative humidty changes are defined as tempature changes of 10 degrees or humidity changes of 5 percent. I at this time am unable to find the instruction manual of were this was found, but I would be willing to change the numbers to anything that we can find scientific data to support. Keep in mind as near as I can tell it takes approximately five secondscalabrate these meters.So it would not be that difficult to say meter needs to be calabrated hourly. Also notice on the above website concerning osha it indicates that the meter is what changes instead of actual noise level when atmoshphereic conditions apply. this is quite from the above mentioned site under Effects of the enviroment "Temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, and dust can all affect the performance of noise-measuring instruments and their readings. Magnetic fields can also affect the performance of instruments. Each of these factors is discussed below. " This to me indicates that when the tempature for example climbs that the actual noise level does not change but the calabration of the meter actually changes.

I would like to see the rule changes to say that the meter should be some ditance from racing lanes. our rule book states that the maximum the front straight can be from the shore is 150' so maybe our rule should state the meter should be 175 from lane 1. To help with logistics of each site there should be no rule on exactly were the db meter has to be because if it is written that it should be between start clock an buoy 6 at some sites that may be in the middle of the street or in the lake. My point here is to make the db meter a specific distance from lane 1. It should not matter if the meter is in the front streth or the back stretch or even in one of the turns.

I would like to see the rule written were peak noise is measured instead of parrallell to the meter. This makes it easier for the person operating the db meter. There may need to be an adjustment to go from 92 dbs to 94 dbs. This is not increasing the sound people this is simply making it easier for the person running the db meter. maybe Buddy Bindict could help with what he saw from parrallel to the meter and peak measurements to further define this. I think a 2 db differnce is what I remeber seeing. This help keeps judgement calls down.

There needs to be a place dedicated for the meter that is clear for some distance. the db meter should not be placed in the vacinity of the retrive boat. The db meter should not be placed in the vacinity of tents or anything that can cause a vibration as this is prone to giving false reading by the db meter.

There should be one tripod specified as different tripods may cause different vibrations that affect db meter in differnet ways.

There should be one meter specified. there are meters that do everything we need to do in $250.00 range.

The only variable that i do not know how to address is wind and magnetic fields. Anybody got in ideas?

I think the above ideas would make the db rules work much better. I have provided you with a couple of websites that contain OSHA guildlines and I believe what iam saying to be true. If you think that I have taken something out of context please explain. I am no noise expert but I am trying to help ind a cure to this problem. I have not tested any of this and there are a number of variable that may need to be addressed. if you see one of these variables please post.

Sincerely,

Allen Waddle

 

[John Knight]

Allen,

Appreciate your thoughts on the subject. You asked if some of your ideas could work or not. Some of my comments in return.:

1. I work for a gov't high tech electronic engineering organization. We have most everything under the sun but I am not a tech so I have to rely upon some of my engineers and techs. We have a calibration lab that calibrates all types of electronic gear. Gear from under 1K to over well 100K. But I cannot use it. But I have talked with many of our guys over the years. A self calibrating unit will cost a lot of $$$ and must be recalibrated yearly and is more costly to do. They say it is not worth it for what we are doing. Unless our units are used for bowling balls, they should stay within specs (1 db) for over 5 years. It is the care we provide that makes the difference. Even for the $50.00 Radio Shack units.

2. We have a number of sound chambers. Many things affect them and the exterior accoustics of a lake. We need a degree in geology and engineering to make a call on the differentials and their effect. The guys love to talk about their trade but they state one simple fact: Resonance is the MAJOR influence that causes the differences we see. Control them and we will see more stable results.

3. A tripod can actually ADD to the DB level. If it is made of metal, it can increase resonance through the harmonics, amplify them and artifically increase the reading. Some of them recommend using a non-metal table or table top and place a piece of foam of least 1" or accoustic foam under the meter. This will help isolate some of the sound that increases the reading. Suggest that the tech committee try this against the tripod method and see if there is a difference. The engineers assure me there will be.

Refining the method of the testing is the right way to do this. However, mandating higher cost equipment, even 250.00, to be bought by the clubs, is not the way to go. The engineers maintain if the method used is uniform a Radio Shack unit is reliable enough for our purposes. My guys use equipment well over 10K in cost as the specs are that exacting. And they are doing work for military HUMVEES in the field in operational modes - running in combat. Much worse needs than ours.

Right on with the retrieve boat, trailers and anything in the immediate vicinity of the testing area. Essentially creates a funnel effect for the sound coming to the meter. Tough to do at some sites however. Take a good look at the site and try to clear out or keep out the items that magnify the sound. WILL cause problems. Good example - Atlanta potentially. Entire pit area is concrete with a concrete wall. Sound is captured and amplified upward. If the meter is in the CD area it will be higher than in the grass area before or after the pit area? Question begs then, which one is more correct? It is site specific! And that is what has to be taken into account.

Love your passion my friend. We'll get it fixed but we have to be patient. The internats revealed a major flaw that needs to be fixed and it shall.

John

 

[AWaddle322]

Allen,

Appreciate your thoughts on the subject. You asked if some of your ideas could work or not. Some of my comments in return.:

1. I work for a gov't high tech electronic engineering organization. We have most everything under the sun but I am not a tech so I have to rely upon some of my engineers and techs. We have a calibration lab that calibrates all types of electronic gear. Gear from under 1K to over well 100K. But I cannot use it. But I have talked with many of our guys over the years. A self calibrating unit will cost a lot of $$$ and must be recalibrated yearly and is more costly to do. They say it is not worth it for what we are doing. Unless our units are used for bowling balls, they should stay within specs (1 db) for over 5 years. It is the care we provide that makes the difference. Even for the $50.00 Radio Shack units.

2. We have a number of sound chambers. Many things affect them and the exterior accoustics of a lake. We need a degree in geology and engineering to make a call on the differentials and their effect. The guys love to talk about their trade but they state one simple fact: Resonance is the MAJOR influence that causes the differences we see. Control them and we will see more stable results.

3. A tripod can actually ADD to the DB level. If it is made of metal, it can increase resonance through the harmonics, amplify them and artifically increase the reading. Some of them recommend using a non-metal table or table top and place a piece of foam of least 1" or accoustic foam under the meter. This will help isolate some of the sound that increases the reading. Suggest that the tech committee try this against the tripod method and see if there is a difference. The engineers assure me there will be.

Refining the method of the testing is the right way to do this. However, mandating higher cost equipment, even 250.00, to be bought by the clubs, is not the way to go. The engineers maintain if the method used is uniform a Radio Shack unit is reliable enough for our purposes. My guys use equipment well over 10K in cost as the specs are that exacting. And they are doing work for military HUMVEES in the field in operational modes - running in combat. Much worse needs than ours.

Right on with the retrieve boat, trailers and anything in the immediate vicinity of the testing area. Essentially creates a funnel effect for the sound coming to the meter. Tough to do at some sites however. Take a good look at the site and try to clear out or keep out the items that magnify the sound. WILL cause problems. Good example - Atlanta potentially. Entire pit area is concrete with a concrete wall. Sound is captured and amplified upward. If the meter is in the CD area it will be higher than in the grass area before or after the pit area? Question begs then, which one is more correct? It is site specific! And that is what has to be taken into account.

Love your passion my friend. We'll get it fixed but we have to be patient. The internats revealed a major flaw that needs to be fixed and it shall.

John

John, Ifd you read the osha guide line it says the meter should not be brought dirrectly from hot staorage place. and used. This to me implies that meter should be calabrated in the atmospheric conditions that the sound will be measured in. We have already proven the radio shack meter not to be reliable enough in my opinion.

A calabrator coat less than $300.00. there is no reason that The IMPBa can not buy one and calabrate all meter for us.

I believe that $250 is a small price to pay for repitable results. Ask yourself this is you had Mr Bendicts job at the nats would you feel good with a 50 meter or with a 250 dollar meter that was Calabrated hourly. People were disqulified with the cheapest measuring device you can buy. Maybe if $250 is to much for a club to pay maybe they can team up with a couple of clubs in the area and share one meter.

We dont have much time to fix the problem. This is causing major term oil in this orginization.

One other thing is that if we use OSHA guidelines witch is a fedral orginization I would feel like we have used the best technology we have available to us. If it is good enough for a fedral goverment to adopt it is should be good enough for us model boaters. Is it perfect. Probably not but I can asssure you that it is a whole lot closer than what we have now. If \anything was to ever go to court as some have sudjested do you believe the club would stand a better chance with Radio shack meter or those defined as a fedral law?

Allen

 

[AWaddle322]

John, Are your engineers telling you that the radio shack meter will maintain calabration from 30 degree day at the record trials and 100 degree day with the same calabration or are they telling you that it will maintain accuracy in a controlled enviroement were it is 70 degree with 50 pwecwnt humidity?

Allen

 

[Charles Perdue]

Guys, we are still trying to reinvent the wheel. We can contact some of our fellow RC boaters overseas, England, Europe, Japan, ECT and find out what testing procedures they are using, the part #s of their DB meters,how they are using them, what real life problems they have had and how they settle a dispute. While we are at it ask for specific pipe #s that they are using with different applications, techniques they are using to muffle intake noise, sound isolation and vibrations. They have been complying with a lot lower sound level for many years successfully. I am sure that they would be glad to help fellow boaters. If they can consistently run 80 DB and under, surely we can do the same for 92BD. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Joe Warren]

What a croc of **** this discussion has turned into.

1 - The Evansville club performed MAGNIFICENTLY at the 2006 Internats and upheld the rules as instructed by the BOD.

2 - The BOD on the start of the racing at the Internats held a meeting on the drivers stand, where we voted to uphold the rule that was passed by the membership as written. If I remember correctly there were (2) board members that voted to throw out the rule. It is still a mystery why we needed to have a vote on a rule that the IMPBA membership had approved, we didnt vote on any other racing rule, there should have been no vote at all.

3- Mark I like you man but you are part of the board and because a vote doesnt go your way you cant criticize the process. The same with your proposal at the Internats board meeting, you didnt have a second .. so what,, there was no conspiracy just that your idea wasnt supported at the time and you didnt have any support lined up before hand. We should always stand as one.

4- Line of logic 1 "My boat was legal at home..bla bla bla", line of logic 2 "the Radio shack DB meters are not full OSHA-ANSI-FBI-CIA-RCMP calibrated and certified therefore I couldnt have been over". Well I gues those were the same not calibrated POS units that said you were legal too. You dont need a DB meter to tell me when a boat is loud in the hot pits or when its making a pass on the lake. All you racerss can hear the really loud boats without even trying you can see all the guys that are working in their tents stop and look at the lake when a very loud boat goes by. We are all immune to the noise since we hear it constantly, now just imagine what the non boater thinks. And I would like to see the super cerified db numbers in the hot pits when the F boats and the twins are all starting up.. that in my opinion is dangerous deafening noise. Line of logic3 "its the dam keyboard racers or the non racers that voted for this rule". I dont care who voted i recived 60 votes on the rules proposal out of 200 plus members, I applaud them for voting.

5- Great credit to everyone that is participating in the noise committee and hoping that you are able to come up with a solution. Your hard work will be a benefit to everyone in the IMPBA.. congratulations and good luck in accomplishing this task.

Tony J

D2

Tony, Do you believe its Best to Discuss this Issue?? Or just encourage the REAL RACERS to start selling equipment on E- bay. I know you have traveled great distances to compete & Race Good Competiton. Good Competiton, Fast Motors, prop, Pipe & Boat of the week has kept this Hobby alive for a long time. What direction is this Hobby Headed? Some of the Race sites maybe more DB sensitive than Others. But some of the sites that are being discussed Do Not have DB Issues. There MUST be a way to enforce the current Db`s Consistantly. Or we Must change the Current Rule untill we can..... I personally see more registered IMPBA boaters running away from this Hobby than Running towards. Could we vote on new Rule? that if your Small CID boat (40) is half as Big as my CID (90) that we make you comply to half the amount of the current DB? Could you Comply....... Dont take this as a personal attack. I have great respect for you & your level of competition. But this Stink Needs AIRED OUT......

 

[Andy Wood]

Why couldn't we just go to a local car stereo dealer and check our meters with theres. Also I think wind might play a roll in db levels. I am thinking maybe putting it in a tent by itself might be an answer. But if you do that then the tent will absorb some of the noise, but this might cut down on backround noise and echoes.

Andy

 

[piper_chuck]

Toss the DB meter in the lake and have the INDUSTRY ( Read in people with money, with the want to support your happy little hobby ) make the pipes that "AN" IMPBA adopted group approve.. NOTIHNG NEW here.. its done all the time..

And create a situation where we're all forced to run only one of the only pipes that have been "approved" by a select inner circle? No thanks. We're after reducing noise, not creating organization sponsored monopolies. Who cares HOW a person reduces noise, as long as it's done.

I would like to get the ball roling on a way to improve our current db rule. i am looking for constructive critcism of why any of my ideas would not work. I am not interested in hearing we do not need to fix the rule. I am not interested in hearing just got your boat to 85 db's. I am interested in peoples opinion of how to make a db rule work consistanly.

Nice to see you're approaching this with an open mind! One of the possible outcomes is that the existing rule is fine. Sharing information on 85 db boats is also much more important than trying to come up with a rule to pacify someone who's trying to run their boat at 91.9 db!