Displacement Size

[Ian Inverarity]

CMB is not the only manufacturer of nitro race engines over 0.9cid. For years I used PiP A100's which are 1.04cid, including racing at the 2004 NAMBA and IMPBA nats. In modified form they were the most powerful engines I have run, and I have run K-90's and CMBs too.

Ian.

 

[Mark Bullard]

CMB is not the only manufacturer of nitro race engines over 0.9cid. For years I used PiP A100's which are 1.04cid, including racing at the 2004 NAMBA and IMPBA nats. In modified form they were the most powerful engines I have run, and I have run K-90's and CMBs too.
Ian.

112950[/snapback]

​

Ian

You are very right but we do not see many of these motors in this country and the one that are do not run them in twins.

Mark

 

[Buckshot]

-Buck-

 

[BigChuck]

AS FAR AS WE KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one has protested, and mainly no one that runs twin in my view cares. The 1.0 sleeve fits in all CMB motors EXCEPT the NEW Rs. And they have their own version.

If this was the case or is the case........Should every person that builds a twin with CMB motors expect to have the pulled down???????????

One thing that has to be viewed is that growth is just that. It will become a situtation that we will be not able to avoid. We have gotten HOW MANY YEARS out of this current rule. Wheather you like it or not, ANDY did tell you were the direction IS going. Are we going to be the OSTRICH..............Or are we going to be the standard by which others are measured. I have being researching a direction that would take us to a WHOLE NEW playing field. But I also know that at the current standard of how things function we well never see this a r/c boat for racing. I have said it before an this is on the issue that we will face for the duration of the hobby and this orginazation. Grow or not to. Look at the auto makers, the match box cars as we knew them are not so match box size any more.....................

 

[Don Ferrette]

Like I said before NONE of you has presented a single arguement why it should change other than because a couple of you want it to. What is the benefit to the organization AS A WHOLE? Please will someone present a VALID arguement as to why it should change. Mark presented a perfect reason why it should not & I agree with him 100% based on the case he presented. I could care less if I had to race against a pair of cubes but I am certainly not going to agree to it just because someone wants me to. And why would you want to have 2 boats, one for F class & one for twin class when right now one boat does both. Not everyone's pockets are that deep either people. Unless somebody can step up & present a better reason than Mark's it's time to drop this, it's getting real old real fast.

 

[Joe Warren]

Don I`ll set back to see when CMDI develops the 1.05 & wants to sale them. Dont jump on here telling how great they would be if ONLY we could put them in a Twin. The point is........ let Current production engine Race Sold TODAY ...Race TODAY. I support BALL`S OUT Racing BIG CID`s too.. I`am aware there are rules But If the engine mfg`s are going to Bigger cubes For Sure ( trend proves they are) the rule will sooner or later be rewritten anyways. I would Vote aginst the Current Rule for the US-1 twin class @ 1.820..... Just when I believe the IMPBA is Moving & Grooving. Some still appear to have their heads up there ass. Lets argue about the rules as we all did. The Noise Rules thats a A Joke & @ Most Event today..... Who Won that Argument????? Don`t matter... Depending on where you race as to How it is Currently Implemented. Now we have Several of the same boaters that votes Yes for the Muffler devices that are Crying Wanting to..... please..... let me take the muffler off the .21 boats & others that may have already been under 92 DB. WHY NOT Put the CID FOR THE US-1 TWIN CLASS out for Vote as we did the NOISE ISSUE??? Why shoot it Down right here????? P.s With all the arguing is this Listbot? I`am I on the right forum... have to be... We both got pitched off the other place....

 

[Mike Menter]

Tell them how you really feel Don!!!!

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don I`ll set back to see when CMDI develops the 1.05 & wants to sale them. Dont jump on here telling how great they would be if ONLY we could put them in a Twin. The point is........ let Current production engine Race Sold TODAY ...Race TODAY. I support BALL`S OUT Racing BIG CID`s too.. I`am aware there are rules But If the engine mfg`s are going to Bigger cubes For Sure ( trend proves they are) the rule will sooner or later be rewritten anyways. I would Vote aginst the Current Rule for the US-1 twin class @ 1.820..... Just when I believe the IMPBA is Moving & Grooving. Some still appear to have their heads up there ass. Lets argue about the rules as we all did. The Noise Rules thats a A Joke & @ Most Event today..... Who Won that Argument????? Don`t matter... Depending on where you race  as to How it is Currently Implemented.  Now we have Several of the same boaters that votes Yes for the Muffler devices that are Crying Wanting to..... please..... let me take the muffler off the .21 boats & others that may have already been under 92 DB. WHY NOT  Put the CID FOR THE US-1 TWIN CLASS out for Vote as we did the NOISE ISSUE??? Why shoot it Down right here????? P.s With all the arguing is this Listbot? I`am I on the right forum... have to be... We both got pitched off the other place....

112972[/snapback]

​

Like I said Joe it doesn't bother me personally if twin cubes run or not. I just wish someone would sit down & present a well thought out reason justifying it. You can already see the effect it has on the John Bridge trophy & the F class in general. If you change it for one it should be for both twin & F but that is just my opinion.......

And you know I like balls to wall racin' as much as you do. B)

 

[Piston1]

Don the bottom line is that the motor is well established and is presently being used by many Twin model boaters. I don't even run the motors, I run 91RSs. You guys advocating for not allowing them are the ones that make no sense. Marks argument is as hollow as it could be. He states a lot of background history, so what. This is a new category, it has nothing to do with the John Bridge award or F Hydro. The John Bridge award stays were it is, but if changes to the John Bridge award are necessary then we can discuss them here too. As to what are we going to do if a new bigger motor comes out, I'll tell you what we should. What we should do is evaluate it's merits and impacts and then decide if rule changes are required again at that time.

Bill, Joe and myself don't have to submit a new proposal. The proposed rule was published in Roostertail for review and comments and that is exactly what we are doing. The proposal is fine, all we are asking is to allow using the new CMB motors and/or any other similar motor to participate. This is the INTERNATIONAL MODEL BOAT ASSOCIATION it has nothing to do with what we run here in the USA as Mark rudely stated in his previous post.

Don what we are proposing provides no unfair performance advantage and affects no safety margin and I will discuss this issue for as long as I want.

JOSE ORTIZ IMPBA 11755

 

[Joe Warren]

One More thing for all IMPBA twin owners to ponder. We already have a F hydro Class @ the Nats every year. It is the Same as the new proposed US-1 twin classs in CID. You can race your Twin in todays current Current F hydro class. Finish in the Top 5 in point. Run your SAW & 2 LAP Take all the awards Home. HEAT Racing, SAW , 2 LAP , The John Bridge Award, And THE US-1 Award.All in 1 Current class @ the NATS. No Need for NEW additional TWIN class with the Same Rules. Now I love the twins & Currently Own 4 of them. But I dont see the Point in any new twin classes with same exact rules...... Sorry...... Time to consider changing something. We are already fighting the issue @ the nats on MORE TIME to run the Extra Event....

 

[SayMikey]

One More thing for all IMPBA twin owners to ponder. We already have a F hydro Class @ the Nats every year. It is the Same as the new proposed US-1 twin classs in CID. You can race your Twin in  todays current Current F hydro class. Finish in the Top 5 in point. Run your SAW &  2 LAP Take all the awards Home. HEAT Racing, SAW , 2 LAP , The John Bridge Award, And THE US-1 Award.All in 1 Current class @ the NATS.  No Need for NEW additional TWIN class with the Same Rules. Now I love the twins & Currently Own 4 of them. But I dont see the Point in  any new twin classes with  same exact rules...... Sorry......  Time to consider changing something. We are already fighting the issue @ the nats on MORE TIME to run the Extra Event....

112976[/snapback]

​

maybe at the next nats we should weigh some of those big monsters,the twin class is great but as i have read these posts i must agree as a c/d safety is a big issue. Thank God none of the monsters went too wild at this years nats. I dont run twins so im just talking,six boats going 90+mph is pretty cool but very dangerous time to restrictor plate them before we hurt our own people

 

[Piston1]

Mikey my RR is 15#2.5OZ US Post Office scales, without 40 fl. Oz. of fuel CMB 91s. Eagles are probably lighter. Marks are probably the heaviest. All of them well below the IMPBA weight rules.

 

[SayMikey]

Mikey my RR is 15#2.5OZ US Post Office scales, without 40 fl. Oz. of fuel CMB 91s.  Eagles are probably lighter.  Marks are probably the heaviest.  All of them well below the IMPBA weight rules.

112982[/snapback]

​

I new you guys had light boats but i ran the pickup boat at the nats and i think there are a few fat boys <boats out there whats a half gallon of fuel weigh 3 and a half pounds?

 

[Buckshot]

The Noise Rules thats a A Joke & @ Most Event today..... Who Won that Argument????? Don`t matter... Depending on where you race  as to How it is Currently Implemented.

112972[/snapback]

​

Joe,

You my friend win the door prize.

I just got back for NAMBA Dist. 9 where I was there for a few months and there is a 90-db rule at ALL races!

Guess where most of the NAMBA rules are set?!?!?!?!

Let me help, NAMBA Dist. 9 that's where.

OH and there is no bitching or crying about a noise issue.

Why?

Because it works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just whent to a IMPBA dist. 7 race here in my home town of Ft. Worth and I can assure you that all the " heavy hitters" are NOT in any way meeting the IMPBA rule let alone the more stringate NAMBA rule!

Ask any one that was at that race who watched my 1.0 rigger run 90mph+ with a muffeled pipe and they will tell you BUCK.

Why?: Because I play by the rules.

Are you people SCARED that someone will be faser than you?

Well you have a long hard road of life to learn. Someone WILL ALWAYS BE FASTER THAN YOU, and me !! face it! that is life. (but try and catch me )

Now, I started this thread and (Don) I still have not heard any valid reasoning why not to.

Awards are Awards. Right? Right.

You say your reasoning is because of tradition, well, sorry I don't play that game.

I've been in this hobby for a long time (Probably longer than most on here) and have seen this type of crap come and go.

So, for the help of the cause, let us just list the reasoning that has been given on this board of why it shouldn't be so:

(So far)

Weight limit: No difference between a .90 and a 1.01 Right? Right. <_<

Exclusive to one Manufacturer: Wrong again? Wrong <_<

Would not live up to current "Awards": Right? Right but that is not what this is about. Let the people that want to do it do it for the sake of the hobby. (Bigger is better)

Two 1.0's wouldn't be nearly as competitive as two .84's or .90's: BULL ****! If the rules get changed to allow them and I'll bet you see things differently!

Prove me wrong!!

-Buck-

 

[Lake S.P.O.R.T.]

To those of you who have said that there should be no limit on engine size or speed let me toss in my .02. I think Ron Olson touched on this already. There was a group of people that were proposing a class of RC boats that were to be 5 to 6 feet long have big engines and run like 120 MPH. The idea was for these boats to be mini offshore racers, cats and monos. I would be the first one to raise h*** against this. Why? Wanna see Ralph Nader start showing up at the races? Do something that stupid and you will. Most of you guys that are running twins spend enough money on them to race LIFESIZE hydros that you can sit in and drive. 120 MPH heat racing? No. If you want to do that go race real boats. I have, and it's a lot more thrilling than standing on a drivers stand and turning the wheel on a remote. ( I guess that is why I laugh everytime I see a guy on the drivers stand shaking so bad that the antenna is about to break off his transmitter). Don't trash this hobby just because you want to race the biggest and baddest.

Also, the membership is down from past years. I don't think the answer to that is $4000.00 boats.

Mark

 

[Joe Warren]

Buck There a few issues here. 1st Currently IMPBA has No Rules printed for the TWIN Event. Refer to section H There are No TWIN Rules. We are currently racing Under Special Events ONLY... IMPBA F hydro rules are written for the F hydro class. Not TWIN CLASS. if you are racing F hydro & this event has No Special Event Twin class you must be in the limits of the F hydro rules. You would have been hard pressed to DQ a constent because be violated CID rules @ the IMPBA nats in 2005. Possible a few RS101 were running?? (NO RULES PRINTED IN RULE BOOK) # 2 this TWIN proposal was Orginally started to obtain a US-1 class for Twins @ IMPBA National events. Now A few members are just trying to write Some rules for a TWIN class for the local Club racing. AS long as this class TWIN is NOT a IMPBA US-1 class!!! The Twins will always be treated as a SPECIAL EVENT. AS for racing you. I will be in Huntsville Oct 22-23 bring your Twin & Race. You are invited, We would love to have you. . Remember there are No Current rules for the 100 or 101`s in Twin Special Event. B)

 

[Don Ferrette]

Are you people SCARED that someone will be faser than you? Well you have a long hard road of life to learn. Someone WILL ALWAYS BE FASTER THAN YOU, and me !! face it! that is life. (but try and catch me )

Now, I started this thread and (Don) I still have not heard any valid reasoning why not to.

Awards are Awards. Right? Right.

You say your reasoning is because of tradition, well, sorry I don't play that game.

I've been in this hobby for a long time (Probably longer than most on here) and have seen this type of crap come and go.

So, for the help of the cause, let us just list the reasoning that has been given on this board of why it shouldn't be so:

(So far)

Weight limit: No difference between a .90 and a 1.01 Right? Right. <_<

Exclusive to one Manufacturer: Wrong again? Wrong <_<

Would not live up to current "Awards": Right? Right but that is not what this is about. Let the people that want to do it do it for the sake of the hobby. (Bigger is better)

Two 1.0's wouldn't be nearly as competitive as two .84's or .90's: BULL ****! If the rules get changed to allow them and I'll bet you see things differently!

Prove me wrong!!

-Buck-

112991[/snapback]

​

Buck for starters please stop putting words in my mouth. I was not the one who presented the "tradition" arguement, Mark was. He at least gave it some thought & validated it with reasons why. You couple guys are soooo hell bent on this you all can't even correctly read a post.

First- I have NO problem running against cubes. Geez I bet I've said the 1/2 dozen times in this thread.

Second- All I am trying to do is get at least ONE of you to write a well thought out arguement (PROPOSAL) as to why we should change it & what benefit it will bring THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION! Get a CLUE as THAT is how the board will look at it!!

Third- At least get your thoughts on the same page. A couple are people trying there is no added performance angle (then why argue it so hard) & then you blast off about how there is. Duh!

Fourth- WHY would you want a twin that being bigger & badder would exclude itself from the prestigous Bridge award which is dedicated TO THE TWINS!!!! That is why I say if you want this then it should be an across the board displacement increase.

Now for the last time will you guys get your ducks in a row & think through a solid well founded PROPOSAL to submit to the board.

If your smart about it you'll leave the twin US-1 proposal out of it & go with a simple well written proposal on a displacement increase.

And as for Joe's statement about the twin event being a specialty class you are still breaking the rules if you exceed the maximum displacement of nitro class motors.

And I do not doubt his statement about there are those who a probably already doing this.

 

[Piston1]

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.

 

[Mark Bullard]

One other thing on this new class. Where does it say Twin Class. It does not it says Multi-Engine Hydro. The way that I have writen the rules is you can run sixteen engines with two shafts per motor and thirty-two props on the boat. But with everything added up it must be a minimum displacement of 0.610 cu. In. or 10cc. and a maximum displacement of 1.830 cu. in. or 30cc. Now what you going to do when you see a hydro with sixteen .10cid motors with thirty-two props. I know what I would say WOW!

Mark Bullard

 

[Piston1]

Get real Mark. I would say there's that man's worst nightmare made reality. What mental hospital he escape from. :lol: