Displacement Size

[Piston1]

Yes! Yes! Don, are you surprised, why not.

 

[BigChuck]

TRIPLE ENGINE has been built!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will tell you, if you think they are CRYING NOW..............

It is like having a top fuel motor in a Tricycle. The power to weight was HUGE!!!

No, James do not even go there with that one. However you are touching on a subject that I have talked about on here before.

Don, does part of what he said sound like something I have said.???

It it time, but time moves at the same pace. As it has all these years.

Interesting, James could walk away for a period of time come back and say the same thing I said.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Yes! Yes! Don, are you surprised, why not.

106288[/snapback]

​

Interesting angle I must admit.

 

[Piston1]

Also, it should be noted that the 25#s weight limitation is including a full load of fuel. Refer to page K-7 of the IMPBA rule book.

 

[Preston_Hall]

I'm talkin' TWIN 270's dude!

I think we are a little late.

 

[Buckshot]

I'm talkin' TWIN 270's dude!

I think we are a little late.

107012[/snapback]

​

Are those mounted in a wave runner jet ski? :blink: :lol:

-Buck-

 

[Preston_Hall]

That was off the Bonzi site. This is off the Stryker site.

This is why I thought twins should encompass every engine we run now if that is how it is going to be. If we cap it off with a cc limit then some loose out. I hate to slam the door on the guy who wants twin 1.0s but what about the gassers? If we don't include them then we are just being prejudice and not thinking of the sport as a whole. Obviously the gassers are already thinking about twins.

 

[Buckshot]

This is why I thought twins should encompass every engine we run now if that is how it is going to be. If we cap it off with a cc limit then some loose out. I hate to slam the door on the guy who wants twin 1.0s but what about the gassers? If we don't include them then we are just being prejudice and not thinking of the sport as a whole. Obviously the gassers are already thinking about twins.

107128[/snapback]

​

Yes Preston you are right. I don't care if some one wants to build a Multi-engine gas boat. Hell I think it's cool and I'd love to see one run. Any model boat that has two engines singing the same song down the front straight is OK in my book! The rules are what they are and I'll continue to push for a larger displacment limit and hopfuly everone can decide on where it should be.

-Buck-

 

[Brian MAhoney]

That was off the Bonzi site. This is off the Stryker site.

This is why I thought twins should encompass every engine we run now if that is how it is going to be. If we cap it off with a cc limit then some loose out. I hate to slam the door on the guy who wants twin 1.0s but what about the gassers? If we don't include them then we are just being prejudice and not thinking of the sport as a whole. Obviously the gassers are already thinking about twins.

107128[/snapback]

​

I'll see you two and raise you four, look about half way down. I think its scale rather than a race boat though.

http://p086.ezboard.com/fjimsrcboatdockfrm...icID=4418.topic

 

[Preston_Hall]

That's just sick. What do you do when some body says, "it's a little lean" or " I think you have a bad bearing"? :lol:

 

[Tofastformellow]

just maintaining a good tune would be hard.

i want to see the video of him clearing out and restating them wet...

my little donk pulls my arm out, id hate to see three on the end of my pull starter!

LOL's

Jason

 

[Piston1]

I emailed Equi, Zuber and Bullard the following comments associated with the Multi Engine Hydro Rule proposal.

Item 5 in the proposal for Multi-Engine Hydro published in Sept/05 Roostertail prevents the use of the CMB 1.0 and 1.01RS engines. These are engines that are in wide range usage across our racing circuit. Please, do not impose the F hydro engine diplacement rule into this category. These engines are not a performance advantage, nor do they go above the boat weight limitations in the rule book. Consider this issue and the potential damaging effect of not including these engines. Otherwise please explain the basis for limiting the category to a maximum 30cc.

JOSE ORTIZ IMPBA 11755

 

[Piston1]

Here's Bill's response. I must admit he was quick responding. What he says is like a repeat of the noise rule problems. Pass something up front, then submit an amendment to fix the original flawed rule.

Jose, sorry for the test I had trouble getting the e-mail address correct. I think the main idea is to get the class accepted first then a seprate proposal can be made to increase the engines specs size. This was attempted a few years ago and it failed the idea was "just when do you call it big enough ? " Just because a manufacture makes it does not mean we need nultiple engined boats running them. The Gas guys would love for us to aloow them to run twins but it is not happening. Thanks for the feed back.

 

[Ron Olson]

None of those boats shown above are IMPBA legal. Just because you can build them as big as you want doesn't mean that you race them. What would you like next, cranes to drop them into the pond? Displacement size and weight are in the rulebooks for safety reasons. There is a group here in the US that would like to be able to race huge offshore R/C boats, ASMBA.

 

[bzubee]

Jose that is my response because I didn't introduce either the noise proposal or the twin proposal you need to voice your dissatifaction the the autors of the proposals.

Bill Zuber

 

[Piston1]

I have Bill, before they submitted the proposal. You are the president and I am making you aware of my concerns. You are doing a terrific job. Keep on boating.

 

[Piston1]

I agree all those boats with 4 and six engines are illegal. I am not asking to increase the 25# weight limit including fuel load specified by IMPBA. That would be a significant safety margin reduction. All I am asking is to allow using 1.01 sleeves in .91 motors and 1.0s in .90s. No weight, speed, size, performance or safety margin change whatsoever. To make it legal so that CDs are not burdened with protests based on somebody thinking that somebody has cube sleeves in a 90 engine.

 

[Joe Warren]

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

 

[bzubee]

Joe you and Jose can always introduce your own version of the proposal! Or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Mark Bullard]

When the rules were written in the IMPBA for F classes the largest motor that was made at that time was a 0.60cid motor. To allow expansion of the F class it was decided that 1.83 would be the limit. As years pasted new motors were made first there was 0.65cid then 0.67cid then 0.80cid and so on so on. For many years the 1.830cid limit work just fine. Now a motor manufacture is making a 1.00cid motor. Andy said it very well in a earlier post. If we make it a 2.00cid limit what are we going to do when a motor comes out that is 1.05cid or 1.10cid or bigger. The rules that I proposed were to use the F class motor limit. That way the John Bridge award would stay where it is at in the F Hydro class. For those of you that do not know what the Bridge award is I will explain.

John Bridge Trophy

Trophy to be awarded to the individual having the best total score with a multi-engine Hydro in F class, US-1 competition (1/16 mile Straightaway and Oval time trials, and heat racing). This would be a traveling trophy.

So with this in mind I did not see the reason to raise to motor limit for one manufacture and yes I said one. Further more I do not know if this manufacture will be making motors in the next two years. Only time will tell.

I tried to make the rules work for all kind of props and shafts setups. As to allow gear drives belt drives and any other kind of drives that someone could come up with. As for as these Gas Boats with the multi engines. This class does not include them. The main reason is the fact that most gas motors are at the cid limit already. And if they want a multi engine class they may make there rules for the class to fit there motors. But they will have to stay in the weight limit.

Mark Bullard