Displacement Size

[Don Ferrette]

Don, with all due respect, and I mean respect. You keep asking for a reason and I keep giving you the reason, let me try again.  BECAUSE (reason) this is a NEW CATEGORY intended to regulate the top performing category in our race circuit, it should include the max. available CID Glow/Nitro engines presently in the market.  BECAUSE (reason) these engines provide no unfair performance advantage, nor exceed set weight limitations, our safety margin (25#) is not compromised, and furthermore, BECAUSE (reason) IMPBA should consider all merits, efforts, and attempts from all credible manufacturers it is REASONABLE to request INCLUSION of these engines.  Sooner or later there will be more, and additional reviews will be needed.  My request is simple and it is stated above.

113006[/snapback]

​

Jose' with undeniable equal respect, now write it as if it is the very proposal you intend to present, so it it is crystal clear to all. That is what I was getting at my friend. B)

 

[EatMyShortsRacing]

I agree with Jose, Raise the Total CID from 1.820 to 2.0 in the New TWIN US-1 Class to allow all the current production racing engines to compete. There is NO REASON to KEEP it @ 1.820 as like the F hydro current rule. Maybe MARK Bullard can expaing the resaon to keep it @ 1.820. I Dont see it.... Unless it is a Conflict of interested on someones part????  Many Boaters have said they will vote this Down @ the Current 1.820 Displacement rule.. MARK Can this be changed?? IF NOT? WHY???? Joe Warren  Memphis TN

112912[/snapback]

​

No reason to keep the current rule???? Surely you jest????

A handful of people in the US want to up the twin class eh??? What about the rest of the world??? Some of us in different countries come to your races. We all have the same 30cc limit on our F Hydro / X hydro rules so we have no class for twin 1.0 boats. So if we bring our twins over they will all be twin 90s or below. And we will have to race them against your twin 1.0s....

Lets suppose there is no difference in performance... then why the big deal wanting to run 1.0 instead of .90??? no real reasons.....

Lets suppose there is a difference... then all the US boats will have a distinct advantage over us when we come to race.... so guess what??? take your cubes and shove them coz we just wont bother coming to race... I am not taking my boat half way around the world to be at a disadvantage from the outset...

What you do in your regulations isnt just for yourselves... its for boating in general... WORLDWIDE!!!!! If you dont take into consideration the world of model boating then all you will do is alienate yourselves from the rest of the boating population.

I came over to the 2003 Detroit IMPBA nats and had a ball I still am hoping to get back and race over there soon, but if your twin class goes to cubes.... My boat is staying at home or I just go race NAMBA instead...

So lets just say I make a 1.1 engine... now I dont make any other engine so that will be my first.... so are you going to raise the twin class capacity to 2.2 so you can let all the current production engines race??? I bet not...

These 1.0 engines were produced as an alternative to .90 for single engine boats.... The manufacturers knew the rules when making the engines... Are they complaining??? NO... So who is??? And more importantly, who does it affect and does everybody it affects have a voice in this argument???

 

[Piston1]

Don, I have no reason to reinvent the wheel or complicate the issue with additional proposals. I signed the original handwritten copy that Doc wrote at the 04 Internats. I support the intent of Mark's and Doc's proposal. All I have is one line item issue. Include all Ntro engines, K&B 1.0s, CMB 1.01s, A100s and any other credible known Nitro/Glow engine available in the market at this time, as long as safety margin is not compromised. The only necessary modification to the proposal is to increase the number "1.83" to a value that allows inclusion of all engines. The present F limitation is a thing of the past it appears to me that it is based on the largest engine size that was credibly available at the time to allow Multi-Engine boat competition. If you look carefully in Roostertail the draft was published for discussion. That is exactly what I am doing here. If Mark and Doc elect to ignore my recommendation then my only recourse is my vote.

Now here's another recommendation. I was looking in Roostertail and noticed that the Sport 20 rule is being voted on with a potential line item change (the use of transom mounted struts). Everybody knows that this is a controversial issue among Sport 40/20 boaters. Mark, Doc would it be possible to adopt a similar approach when we vote on the Multi-Engine Hydro rule to allow the membership to decide this matter. There's plenty time to research and determine what a reasonable higher limit should be, before we vote on this rule.

 

[EatMyShortsRacing]

Include all Ntro engines, K&B 1.0s, CMB 1.01s, A100s and any other credible known Nitro/Glow engine available in the market at this time, as long as safety margin is not compromised. 

113112[/snapback]

​

So when a 1.10 is released you will revisit this rule again???

Do you care that you are alienating the rest of the world by allowing this change because nobody outside IMPBA will be able to race a twin 1.0 so they will all have twin .90s or below. So when they come to visit IMPBA races they wont bother bringing their twins because they are racing against boats with larger capacities....

I know my twin will not come to another IMPBA race if this rule goes through and that might affect my decision to come back at all....

Craig Chenco

Melbourne Australia

 

[Tofastformellow]

j

 

[Piston1]

I voiced my opinion. It is time to vote on this issue. Craig if you are a IMPBA member you have a right to vote too.

 

[bzubee]

ALL CD's should keep this in mind when offering an 'Open Class' , 'Twin class', or Multi-engine class on the race flyer you should reference the IMPBA rulebook Section K as to the size limit of the engines for these classes unless you want to allow larger than (1.8 limit) for these classes.

By doing this you will avoid any mis communications at race day.

 

[EatMyShortsRacing]

I voiced my opinion.  It is time to vote on this issue.  Craig if you are a IMPBA member you have a right to vote too.

113242[/snapback]

​

Hmmmm you may have missed my point. I am an AMPBA (Australian) member. What I am pointing out is the issues you are voting on from an IMPBA perspective has an impact outside the IMPBA. These people do not have a voice in your voting, but may have a voice in the choice of where they race (or dont race...)

I do not have an IMPBA membership so cannot vote. What I can do as everyone else outside the IMPBA can do is NOT RACE IMPBA!!! I have raced IMPBA before and I would love to come back. But do you know how hard it is to race overseas? Usually the choice will be based on how accessible the Nationals locations are... for instance anywhere near major airports like LAX, Chicago and New York is easier for us to make it, etc... Start making things even less attractive like having to run our .90s against 1.00 twins means I wont bother taking my twin to an IMPBA race and since I would want to race my twin in the US I would then automatically go to NAMBA races (nothing against NAMBA as I have raced there as well) or just not come at all. Our rules in Australia do not allow twins to have 1.0 engines. I cant think of another major international boating organisation that does allow 1.0s in twins. And do you think the rest of the world will follow just because IMPBA has done it.... Nope...

So this is really a bigger issue the IMPBA is preparing to vote on... one that has worldwide implications. What you cant measure is how many people this issue could turn away from racing IMPBA

 

[BigChuck]

Craig are we to honestly belive that because there is a set of 1.0 in a twin that, that is the only reason you will not want to race againts it??????????

I know that we all have FIGHT in us. And I would consider that a High Ponit in the race weeekend to be BEATING the DAYLIGHTS out of a set 1.0 with 80's

The CLEAR points here are this "Displacement issue" was not on the orginal petition that came out last year............ Changed already!!!

We WILL have to visit this issue again...............!!!!! As boating will go forward with IMPBA or another organization that is interested in what the future of R/C boating will be.

And "Already" we have been racing against 1.0 motors!!!! AND COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Start thinking Gentleman!!!!!!! " Outside the BOX" The NEXT, THE NEXT...........

IS coming!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will leave IMPBA or WHO Ever to join the organization that offers racing for these!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EatMyShortsRacing]

Craig are we to honestly belive that because there is a set of 1.0 in a twin that, that is the only reason you will not want to race againts it??????????
I know that we all have FIGHT in us. And I would consider that a High Ponit in the race weeekend to be BEATING the DAYLIGHTS out of a set 1.0 with 80's

The CLEAR points here are this "Displacement issue" was not on the orginal petition that came out last year............ Changed already!!!   

We WILL have to visit this issue again...............!!!!! As boating will go forward with IMPBA or another organization that is interested in what the future of R/C boating will be.

And "Already" we have been racing against 1.0 motors!!!! AND COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Start thinking Gentleman!!!!!!!    " Outside the BOX"  The NEXT, THE NEXT...........

IS coming!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will leave IMPBA or WHO Ever to join the organization that offers racing for these!!!!!!!!!!!!

113711[/snapback]

​

wow... so a 1.0 isnt potentially faster than a .90.. so a .90 isnt potentially faster than an .80... so the .67 is basically as fast as the .80 so it must be as fast as a 1.0???? seriously though, comparing Mr X's .90 to Mr Y's 1.0 and making a performance claim based on that is stupid... Put Schumaker in a Minardi F1 car and George Bush in the Ferrari and the assumption you would come to is the Minardi is faster????

We live by the rules as they are in Australia and in just about every other country and NAMBA... the ONLY major association to allow 1.0 twins would be IMPBA... so only IMPBA members would have twin 1.0s

And if I am at a disadvantage running my boat against 1.0s then it is really not worth the trouble of shipping it half way around the world to race!!! If there is no gain running 1.0s then why even push to allow them??? .90s and 1.0s cost the same, dont they?

The only possible really justifiable reason to allow 1.0 engines in twin class is BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GO FASTER!!!!! So then why stop at twin 1.0s??? what about triple .80s or what happens when someone brings out a 1.1 or a 1.2??? you just wanna keep upping the capacity????

No other organisation is likely to adopt this class so you just wanna play on your own??? fine... you want to play with everybody running boats across the world, play by the rules... not make them to suit yourselves....

Oh and yes you will seriously lose competitors from other organisations over this whether you like it or not....

...As boating goes forwards???? If you can explain how this is taking boating forwards you deserve a medal!!! Causing division both within the IMPBA and between the IMPBA and the rest of the world is not my idea of forwards....

But then again its your association... do with it what you will.. just dont expect everyoone else to follow coz its not going to happen!!!!

 

[piper_chuck]

Craig are we to honestly belive that because there is a set of 1.0 in a twin that, that is the only reason you will not want to race againts it??????????
I know that we all have FIGHT in us. And I would consider that a High Ponit in the race weeekend to be BEATING the DAYLIGHTS out of a set 1.0 with 80's

The displacement rules are there to level the playing field. Sure it would be great to beat someone with a larger engine. But someone who is going to spend considerable $ and time to attend a race may choose to not bother.

The CLEAR points here are this "Displacement issue" was not on the orginal petition that came out last year............ Changed already!!!   

Isn't the point of the discussion phase of the rules change process to consider, and perhaps implement, changes?

We WILL have to visit this issue again...............!!!!! As boating will go forward with IMPBA or another organization that is interested in what the future of R/C boating will be.

And where exactly are the larger Nitro engines in the future of R/C boating? What is the future of larger R/C boats?

And "Already" we have been racing against 1.0 motors!!!! AND COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

One more time, if there's no difference, why bother using them?

Start thinking Gentleman!!!!!!!    " Outside the BOX"  The NEXT, THE NEXT...........IS coming!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will leave IMPBA or WHO Ever to join the organization that offers racing for these!!!!!!!!!!!!

113711[/snapback]

​

Go for it!

 

[mark voorhies]

Craig are we to honestly belive that because there is a set of 1.0 in a twin that, that is the only reason you will not want to race againts it??????????
I know that we all have FIGHT in us. And I would consider that a High Ponit in the race weeekend to be BEATING the DAYLIGHTS out of a set 1.0 with 80's

The displacement rules are there to level the playing field. Sure it would be great to beat someone with a larger engine. But someone who is going to spend considerable $ and time to attend a race may choose to not bother.

The CLEAR points here are this "Displacement issue" was not on the orginal petition that came out last year............ Changed already!!!   

Isn't the point of the discussion phase of the rules change process to consider, and perhaps implement, changes?

We WILL have to visit this issue again...............!!!!! As boating will go forward with IMPBA or another organization that is interested in what the future of R/C boating will be.

Guys,

I don't run a twin, but I never will, if these disagreements continue!

Keep the class goin!! It's the most watched, and highlighted at all events!

You guys that build and race the twins are awesome! Displacement should

increase with new motor tech, your the top of the line!!

And "Already" we have been racing against 1.0 motors!!!! AND COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

One more time, if there's no difference, why bother using them?

Start thinking Gentleman!!!!!!!     " Outside the BOX"  The NEXT, THE NEXT...........IS coming!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will leave IMPBA or WHO Ever to join the organization that offers racing for these!!!!!!!!!!!!

113711[/snapback]

​

Go for it!

113735[/snapback]

​

 

[BigChuck]

Criag , Dout you would divide the orgainzation over this or any other issue. The muffle rule/noise issue is all but a done deal. And the people that left beacuse of it, left boating altogether

I for one do not see the reason against. It makes not difference to me. BUT IT will become a MAJOR ponit with EVRYONE that CMB's OR ANY motor in a twin

that sounds differnet. Because now it maybe a 1.0!! Now you start some thing.

Chuck as for the Future. you only need to look at how fast the gas classes, motors.

hulls and manufactures have ADVANCED IN a THREE YEAR SPAN!!!!!!!!!

We are here BELLOWING SMOKE about ONE CLASS THAT HAS BEEN A PART OF BOATING SINCE DIRT!!!!! WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Future..................At this rate we may never get their. But there are people out thier RIGHT NOW that are going down that path. If we do not entertain the thought of what is going to get us the EXPOSURE and entertainment value

we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Question? Is Twin hydro to be are only ADRENALIN CLASS?????

 

[piper_chuck]

Chuck as for the Future. you only need to look at how fast the gas classes, motors.hulls and manufactures have ADVANCED IN a THREE YEAR SPAN!!!!!!!!!

We are here BELLOWING SMOKE about ONE CLASS THAT HAS BEEN A PART OF BOATING SINCE DIRT!!!!!  WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Future..................At this rate we may never get their. But there are people out thier RIGHT NOW that are going down that  path. If we do not entertain the thought of what is going to get us the EXPOSURE and entertainment value

we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Question? Is Twin hydro to be are only ADRENALIN CLASS?????

113790[/snapback]

​

The gas classes are what I was alluding to. What's the current trend for the larger nitro classes? Are they growing or shrinking? Are people leaving the sport or moving to gas? Is raising the size limit for multi engine hydros going to stop this trend? Or, will it actually speed it up when people who are running 90s decide to not bother to go to 100s just to keep up with the Jonses? As the rule is being discussed, it's important to think about the intended, and unintended, effects they will have.

Adrenalin is in the eye of the driver and spectator. Until recently, I had never driven more than 20 tunnels and various size monos. While these are not as awe inspiring as a twin rigger, each of them has its own share of adrenalin. When I got my Sport 40 dialed in (thanks to John, Steve, and Don), the adrenalin was definitely flowing. However, I think the adrenalin was as much from the great competition as from the higher speeds. I suspect I'll get another big shot of adrenalin with my next 2 challenges (40 rigger and gas sport hydro) when I (with significant help from Don) get them running. However, as intoxicating as continually higher speeds are, for me the rush pales to that of a closely contested heat. Doesn't matter whether it's 20 tunnel, 40 mono, or twin riggers, the closer the battle, the more adrenalin. The more people in the class, the more likely it is to have such contests.

So, as you debate the rules, think about what's really going to get, and retain. more people. Which will be better for the long term health of the class, setting a size limit and sticking to it, or raising the size every time someone begins marketing something that's bigger and badder?

 

[Piston1]

I was prepared to drop this issue but I have to agree with "Big Chuck".

Well said "BIG CHUCK". I for whatever matters have already heard the "Trumpets". "We are going to make you park your boat if you show up with 1.0s", which by the way I don't have, but because I decided to discuss this issue some of my friends think I run them. How about that for what it is fixing to happen. Any Twin 90 Hydro is so close to the so called ("ceilling 30cc") that it's not even funny. For whatever it count if you run 91RSs you are maybe .002" of a measurement or measurement combination from exceeding the 1.83". A very little bitty more for 90EVOs and a little bitty more for K90s and OPS90s. A little bit less than the 91s, believe it or not for the old P90s. No idea on the others. All this based on published manufacturers engine specs. One small spec. error by the maufacturer and you are hosed. Years ago this event was called "TOP GUN" at the Internats. It was the one run of races that many waited for.

 

[EatMyShortsRacing]

Criag , Dout you would divide the orgainzation over this or any other issue. The muffle rule/noise issue is all but a done deal.  And the people that left beacuse of it, left boating altogether

I personally would not want to divide anything or anyone and I dont expect to have that sort of influence... but it is an issue that has implications outside the IMPBA and will be detremental to attendance at races by non IMPBA boaters... As I said before if I make it back to the US to race if it is only an IMPBA that I can attend I would leave my twin at home. If it became a choice between an IMPBA or NAMBA event to attend I would probably race NAMBA instead. Yes it may not be a big issue to you and personally to me it isnt all that big...... but it is enough to sway the balance of if/where I race..

I for one do not see the reason against. It makes not difference to me. BUT IT will become a MAJOR ponit with EVRYONE that CMB's OR ANY motor in a twin that sounds differnet. Because now it maybe a 1.0!!   Now you start some thing.

Why should it become a major point??? What reason is so compelling to allow twin 1.0s???? Nobody here has seriously proposed any valid reasons to allow twin 1.0s without admitting there is a performance gain. The availability of a 1.0 engine on its own is NO JUSTIFICATION!!! If it was well just wait till a 1.1 comes out because by definition you would have to let them run too.... This ceiling of engine capacity becomes a joke...

Legacy (we already have twin 1.0 boats) issues can be handled. If you have people with these boats already just identify them now, let them run and do not allow any more to be built / raced. I am not even all that fussed about banning the twin 1.0 boats because everyone that has built them knew they were illegal in every association WORLDWIDE except potentially IMPBA. They are not allowed to race anywhere else!!!!

Chuck as for the Future. you only need to look at how fast the gas classes, motors.

hulls and manufactures have ADVANCED IN a THREE YEAR SPAN!!!!!!!!!

We are here BELLOWING SMOKE about ONE CLASS THAT HAS BEEN A PART OF BOATING SINCE DIRT!!!!!  WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

what relevance has that got to the capacity argument for twins??? And how many associations world wide have the same twin class as you???? (Insert "NONE" here)

Future..................At this rate we may never get their. But there are people out thier RIGHT NOW that are going down that  path. If we do not entertain the thought of what is going to get us the EXPOSURE and entertainment value

we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Question? Is Twin hydro to be are only ADRENALIN CLASS?????

113790[/snapback]

​

I cant see how limiting twins to .90 is shooting anyone in the foot. Quite simply either 1 of 2 things must be true....

1/ There is no performance gain and therefore twin 90 runners would not be disadvantaged - so why even consider 1.0s??? (IF you are that concerned about people who already have twin 1.0s have them register the boat to race now. No new twins with 1.0s would be allowed to race / register. )

2/ There is a performance gain (Logically the ONLY REAL REASON someone would even want to get twin 1.0s to be legal).. so the twin .90s are at a disadvantage.