waltr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,289
Stationary testing does sound like the most logical way to determine the actual noise level being produced.
The AMA way does eliminate all of the variables that come into play with the different sites.
This way,you can actually set your boat up at home and test for noise instead of running to the pond and all of the measuring and setbacks.Even at your local pond,you're still lost when you go to a different venue to race.
If you won't go to stationary testing,I'd almost see a need for a test boat to be sent to all of the different sites,along with a box and a DB meter and record the findings from different sites. Than a chart should be added into the rule book stating the findings. You can have the site name and something like +2db or +7db and -3db. That way if you're in Atlanta and you know your boat is at 89db,next race in in Ohio,the factor chart can tell you if you need to work a little harder on the noise before you even go to Ohio.
This would eliminate the element of surprise when you fire up your boat someplace new.
This present way of water testing is way too complicated and again,too many variables from venue to venue.
What are the downsides to stationary testing? Besides a little more work for the race officials.
The noise wars are getting old now,too many other sanctioning bodies already have figured out how to control this problem.Why do we need a different way to do it?
The AMA way does eliminate all of the variables that come into play with the different sites.
This way,you can actually set your boat up at home and test for noise instead of running to the pond and all of the measuring and setbacks.Even at your local pond,you're still lost when you go to a different venue to race.
If you won't go to stationary testing,I'd almost see a need for a test boat to be sent to all of the different sites,along with a box and a DB meter and record the findings from different sites. Than a chart should be added into the rule book stating the findings. You can have the site name and something like +2db or +7db and -3db. That way if you're in Atlanta and you know your boat is at 89db,next race in in Ohio,the factor chart can tell you if you need to work a little harder on the noise before you even go to Ohio.
This would eliminate the element of surprise when you fire up your boat someplace new.
This present way of water testing is way too complicated and again,too many variables from venue to venue.
What are the downsides to stationary testing? Besides a little more work for the race officials.
The noise wars are getting old now,too many other sanctioning bodies already have figured out how to control this problem.Why do we need a different way to do it?
Last edited by a moderator: