At least the IMPBA made rules that are clear

[sjslhill]

NAMBA's new rules are a set of what if, however, might be, I don't know and impossible to tech.

my 2 cents

Steve

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Steve,

Did you see the rules? I haven't seen them and I'm really curious to what they are.

Paul.

 

[jayt]

There are no rules, and until we see the proposals and vote on them, we will continue to use Ni-chemistry only. Why oh why can't some people be patient and wait to see the reality of the situation?

.

 

[sjslhill]

There are no rules, and until we see the proposals and vote on them, we will continue to use Ni-chemistry only. Why oh why can't some people be patient and wait to see the reality of the situation?

.

I suggest you tell everyone to quit posting what they saw at RumRunnerRacing.Com, I saw them there.

 

[sjslhill]

Hi Paul,

Don't act stupid......keep testing your LiPoly packs.

Hi Steve,
Did you see the rules? I haven't seen them and I'm really curious to what they are.

Paul.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Well I went over to RunRunnerRacing site to see what you guys are bickering about. Got sidetracked by a thread proposing that there be no limits on batteries for SAW. WTF??? :blink:

You need to abide by the limits and restrictions for each class of boat, just like the gas & nitro guys have to do. <_<

You want an unlimited class than make a proposal for adding said class. Don't mean to hijack this thread but this was worth mentioning. If it is to become a point of debate then please open a new thread for it.

 

[Mark Bullard]

Well I went over to RunRunnerRacing site to see what you guys are bickering about. Got sidetracked by a thread proposing that there be no limits on batteries for SAW. WTF??? :blink:
You need to abide by the limits and restrictions for each class of boat, just like the gas & nitro guys have to do. <_<

You want an unlimited class than make a proposal for adding said class. Don't mean to hijack this thread but this was worth mentioning. If it is to become a point of debate then please open a new thread for it.

"No Limits" on batteries.! The Amperes and Voltage is already as high as a arc welder. Someone will die.

Mark

 

[jayt]

Guys, let's stick to facts. There are currently limits for each FE class - the number of cells (not unlike engine displacement) but no capacity limit. Regardless of any upcoming votes there will continue to be limits for each class - voltage or indirect voltage (cell count). The yayhoos posting on RRR about SAW are talking about the capacity of the cells used in the classes - not unlike fuel tank sizes - although admittedly more complex. Are there existing general restrictions on fuel tank sizes or nitro percentages? Didn't think so.

There is no reason for debate UNTIL THE RULES ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE MEMBERS. They have been mailed out. Please read them first, then ask questions and enter into discussions. Jumping to conclusions now is counter-productive and will result in misinformed voters and a screwed up vote. As long as we keep to facts and not emotion, we will make the right decisions. Thanks.

.

 

[sjslhill]

In many ways F/E is becoming unlimited. Since the introduction of Brushless motors in most of the classes, motors were only limited by voltage and capacity. Now the rules are going towards elimination of capacity limits as well.

So, unlike Nitro which is limited by the CC of the motor, F/E has no motor limit, therfore you will have the possibility of 2+ hp motors in a 7.4V class now. The racers that are drawing up the rules are running 150 amp setups or 1665 watts in the smallest class.

You IMPBA and NAMBA directors better look seriously into the liability issues that are increasing with LiPoly.

Have fun in court, it's going to happen.

 

[Darin Jordan]

So, unlike Nitro which is limited by the CC of the motor, F/E has no motor limit, therfore you will have the possibility of 2+ hp motors in a 7.4V class now. The racers that are drawing up the rules are running 150 amp setups or 1665 watts in the smallest class.

Hey Steve... First off... "these guys" are running the same setups they've been running all last year... We've already been running 70-140Amp N2-Hydro setups... That's not new... or news...

Second... If you have a better solution, how about laying it out there rather than just bitching about it... It's always a lot easier, and safer, to sit back and complain rather than put yourself out there for criticism by proposing an idea...

I've already asked the "experts" if they could figure out a system... a REAL, actually IMPLEMENTABLE system, based on motor parameters where the motor could be limited in some way... I'd be all for that, and hull size limits to boot... If you have the answers then Buck up and let's here 'em...

 

[sjslhill]

So, unlike Nitro which is limited by the CC of the motor, F/E has no motor limit, therfore you will have the possibility of 2+ hp motors in a 7.4V class now. The racers that are drawing up the rules are running 150 amp setups or 1665 watts in the smallest class.

Hey Steve... First off... "these guys" are running the same setups they've been running all last year... We've already been running 70-140Amp N2-Hydro setups... That's not new... or news...

Second... If you have a better solution, how about laying it out there rather than just bitching about it... It's always a lot easier, and safer, to sit back and complain rather than put yourself out there for criticism by proposing an idea...

I've already asked the "experts" if they could figure out a system... a REAL, actually IMPLEMENTABLE system, based on motor parameters where the motor could be limited in some way... I'd be all for that, and hull size limits to boot... If you have the answers then Buck up and let's here 'em...

When I started this thread I put myself in line for criticism. My solution would have been to follow the guidelines of what Europe is doing. http://www.astecmodels.co.uk/nationals-2006.php Instead, a few USA racers are completely turning F/E into a professional division. N2 boats pulling 70-140 amps should have never been allowed to happen.

regards,

Steve

 

[Darin Jordan]

My solution would have been to follow the guidelines of what Europe is doing. http://www.astecmodels.co.uk/nationals-2006.php Instead, a few USA racers are completely turning F/E into a professional division.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I simply don't see the difference in those rules and ours... "ANY" motor and "UP to XX Sub-C" cells is exactly what we have now... And, quite frankly, would allow one to built a 140Amp N2 boat... Just wouldn't allow batteries to survive for more than a 5 or 6 cycles... If there is something more there that I'm not seeing, please point it out...

N2 boats pulling 70-140 amps should have never been allowed to happen.

This is happening today under the existing rules... Without hull size limits, or spec motors, it was bound to happen sooner or later... I tried to raise the flag about this a year ago, but was quickly squashed by those not wanting these limits... Now, we have what we have...

Again, I'd be all for some kind of maximum specs for a motor if someone could actually create something that could be tech'ed, that ISN'T a spec motor rule...

This wasn't "allowed to happen"... it was DESTINED to happen... If you have a solution that would actually work to reign it in or cap it somehow, I'd love to hear it...

 

[sjslhill]

You don't see a difference in those rules? 400, 500 and 700 motor classes are in there. Also some classes have weight restrictions and many have longer race times.

All NAMBA and the IMPBA is doing is moving more and more towards unlimited Brushless and now LiPoly rules. So, to make the N2 class not ruin batteries, your answer is to run 3700mah 2P packs for a total of 7400mah or MORE?

I really don't care anymore.....you guys have fun with your unlimited budgets, N-2 will cost people $1,000 in the future.

regards,

Steve

My solution would have been to follow the guidelines of what Europe is doing. http://www.astecmodels.co.uk/nationals-2006.php Instead, a few USA racers are completely turning F/E into a professional division.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I simply don't see the difference in those rules and ours... "ANY" motor and "UP to XX Sub-C" cells is exactly what we have now... And, quite frankly, would allow one to built a 140Amp N2 boat... Just wouldn't allow batteries to survive for more than a 5 or 6 cycles... If there is something more there that I'm not seeing, please point it out...

N2 boats pulling 70-140 amps should have never been allowed to happen.

This is happening today under the existing rules... Without hull size limits, or spec motors, it was bound to happen sooner or later... I tried to raise the flag about this a year ago, but was quickly squashed by those not wanting these limits... Now, we have what we have...

Again, I'd be all for some kind of maximum specs for a motor if someone could actually create something that could be tech'ed, that ISN'T a spec motor rule...

This wasn't "allowed to happen"... it was DESTINED to happen... If you have a solution that would actually work to reign it in or cap it somehow, I'd love to hear it...

 

[Darin Jordan]

I really don't care anymore.....you guys have fun with your unlimited budgets, N-2 will cost people $1,000 in the future.

Again... lots of hype and fear mongering, without any stated, usable, implementable solutions...

There is NOTHING stoping NAMBA or IMPBA from creating any number of limited or restricted classes... Fact is that right now there aren't many... LS-classes, N1, and M2 are the ones that pop up off the top of my head... And yet, everytime a new "restricted" class is considered, everyone screams bloody murder because we "already have too many classes"...

Clubs can make ANY NUMBER of classes they like... Heck, ours made a "spec-rigger" class this year that promotes EXACTLY what you are advocating... maybe it'll catch on and become a regular NAMBA class... who knows... All it would take to get this type of change in place is for someone to put the idea/proposal down on paper and get it through the process... Bitching about the system online doesn't get anything accomplished... Discussing it might, however...

I think it would be pretty cool if we could come up with some parameters inside of which a motor would have to fit that could put some "cc" style "displacement" limits on each class.... Maybe Joerg has the right idea with limiting available Amps, but that really only creates a fuse that you weigh... It would be more useful and regulated to limit the maximum "displacement", whatever the FE equivalent of that is, for each class, in combination with the volts...

Any thoughts on how this could be accomplished?

 

[Andy Greene]

Are there existing general restrictions on fuel tank sizes or nitro percentages? Didn't think so.

.

J, not that it really matters to me, but why on earth would there be a rule on the size of the tank or perc of nitro?? I'm very curious which direction you want to see Lipo's go in NAMBA and IMPBA. though. Is the sport ready yet? I ask this not to be a wise ass, but to ask someone of your expertise on the subject what they really think.

 

[Andy Greene]

Are there existing general restrictions on fuel tank sizes or nitro percentages? Didn't think so.

.

J, not that it really matters to me, but why on earth would there be a rule on the size of the tank or perc of nitro?? I'm very curious which direction you want to see Lipo's go in NAMBA and IMPBA. though. Is the sport ready yet? I ask this not to be a wise ass, but to ask someone of your expertise on the subject what they really think.

 

[sjslhill]

SINCE NAMBA members voted almost every **** class into brushless, I guess you now have a problem that cannot be solved.

Put a hand out 50 amp fues into every N2 boat, that will take care of it.

Put in a weight restriction 440g for NIMH or 300g for LiPoly Battery pack

Put on a 21 inch hull size limit

 

[sjslhill]

You can't compare Nitro with F/E. Nitro is limited by CC and this is measured. Fuel tank is limited by the size of the boat and weight to make them run fast. Also fuel is consummed and the CG is affected by this fuel loss.

F/E was limited by motor technology, now with the introduction of Brushless motors and high amp controllers, these system burn up all the round cells. With cells burning up, they are going to higher amp battery technology to solve this problem. It's never ending by not putting limits on something....you could have 45" 7.4V classes some day.

Limit the amps

Limit the motor

Limit the size of the hull

Limit the weight of the batteries

Limit something

Those that want to run anything goes, make that a class.....Hydro / Mono

Are there existing general restrictions on fuel tank sizes or nitro percentages? Didn't think so.

.

J, not that it really matters to me, but why on earth would there be a rule on the size of the tank or perc of nitro?? I'm very curious which direction you want to see Lipo's go in NAMBA and IMPBA. though. Is the sport ready yet? I ask this not to be a wise ass, but to ask someone of your expertise on the subject what they really think.

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Steve,

Don't act stupid......keep testing your LiPoly packs.

What? I have NO CLUE what the rule proposal looks like. I wasn't included in IMPBAs or NAMBAs write-ups! So if that means Im stupid so be it.

Paul.

 

[T.S.Davis]

Crazy Steve strikes again. Get help Steve.

N1 mono, LSH, LSO are still brushed. And you bet, the NAMBA members voted for what they wanted. Which is exactly what they will do with this new proposal. Vote for against it as they see fit. The members will get what the members vote for or against. Again! Direct democracy.

Now, on the upcoming NAMBA proposal. It's a combination of proposals written by 5 people from 4 districts. 3 of the major FE clubs voted in favor of each proposal. It has my endorsement. I have no sponsors and don't you dare accuse me of being in anyones pocket. You don't know who authored it so don't claim too.

You've seen bits and pieces here and there but have NOT seen the proposal. Nobody has yet. We're waiting on the mail. You wont likely get to see it as you are not a NAMBA member. No that I think on it, why is this of such concern to you when you don't race at either IMPBA or NAMBA sanctioned events? Vested interest perhaps? Your entitled to your opinion Steve. Do you even know what your having an opinion on? You can't possibly because you don't have the proposal.

To the NAMBA members, don't listen to any of this drivel. In fact, don't listen to me either. Read the proposal, form your own opinion and vote accordingly.