piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
Nope, not tired, it's an interesting discussion. I've got some ideas and I'm in the middle of writing them down. I'll either post them here or send them to you when I'm finished.
IMPBA Outboard question
- Thread starter legendscar24
- Start date
Help Support Intlwaters:
piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
Hope the attachment works...
I've written up some specifications. I used MS Word, but posted them here in rich text format and as a PDF. This should allow most people to view them. The posting window says there's less than 22k available for posting so I did not attach the Word version. If anyone wants it, shoot an email to me at [email protected] and I'll send it.
The format of the rules will probably look familiar, I used NAMBA's rules as a starting point. I did this partly because they already described a stock class. The other thing I liked about the NAMBA rules is they frequently write the rules for an entire type of boat, such as Sport Hydros, and then have a small section listing the engine and hull specs for each class. This makes it easier to add additional sizes later.
Since tunnel hulls are already pretty well defined, I just focused on engines. I don't know what to use for the carb bore, exhaust outlet, or hull minimum, so I just put ??? there for now. I also just realized that I mis-named the class. It should be Stock 45 tunnel rather than stock 40. Edit: another name idea, perhaps it's time for us Americans to go metric and call it Stock 7.5 tunnel.
Since I think IMPBA needs some stock classes, that's the way I wrote them up. I realize there is not a concensus on which way this should go. Something to consider is if we start out with a stock class and later change our minds, nothing is lost. People will be able to do the internal mods when the rules change. However, if we start out with an anything internal goes class, it will be nearly impossible to go back to stock later on. The fact that it will obsolete the engines that have been modified will be used as an argument against it. Since there have been people asking for stock, and finite cost, racing, perhaps this is a good time to give it a try.
I thought about adding a $ limit for the engines to help keep costs down. I know of other types of R/C competition, combat for example, that did that and these classes have become some of the most popular. Right now there's only one manufacturer. If we put a price limit in place, it would provide a guideline for anyone else considering building them. Alternatively, market forces may keep the prices down. A really high performance, and high $, stock engine may not have a big enough market to make the minimum quantity worth producing. A lower $, but good performing engine would have a bigger market. Not including a $ limit certainly keeps the rules simpler, and eliminates the need for periodic price adjustments.
And finally, inspections. I hear the message loud and clear that some want them and some don't. So, what I did is wrote up straw man text for the different kinds of inspections. Then I prefaced this section by stating that the host club chooses what kind of inspection(s) they want to do. Hopefully, this will be a compromise that can work for everyone. If a club feels strongly about enforcement, they can use tear downs to ensure compliance. If a club doesn't want to go to that trouble, they can choose a simpler option such as the Go, No-go gauges.
I also included an engine claim, that was similar to what Don said ODMBA has adopted. This is also up to the host club to use or not use. If the class is going to be stock I feel that there should be some rules with teeth to discourage cheating. The threat of losing one's (modified) engine should be a pretty good deterrant. However, whether the engine claim gets used or not is entirely up to the host club. In thinking a bit more on this, if a club is going to permit engine claims, maybe that should be documented in the race flier. This lets the person with the modified engine stay home rather than travel to the race and discover at the driver's meeting that they are exposed to losing their engine. The host club will have to think about whether they do or do not want to use the engine claim. It might cause some people who have stock engines to stay home. However, Don's club has shown that there is a desire, at least in some clubs, for this type of rule. Other forms of R/C competition have engine claims in place, so it's obvious that they can be made to work.
stock_40.rtf
stock_40.pdf
I've written up some specifications. I used MS Word, but posted them here in rich text format and as a PDF. This should allow most people to view them. The posting window says there's less than 22k available for posting so I did not attach the Word version. If anyone wants it, shoot an email to me at [email protected] and I'll send it.
The format of the rules will probably look familiar, I used NAMBA's rules as a starting point. I did this partly because they already described a stock class. The other thing I liked about the NAMBA rules is they frequently write the rules for an entire type of boat, such as Sport Hydros, and then have a small section listing the engine and hull specs for each class. This makes it easier to add additional sizes later.
Since tunnel hulls are already pretty well defined, I just focused on engines. I don't know what to use for the carb bore, exhaust outlet, or hull minimum, so I just put ??? there for now. I also just realized that I mis-named the class. It should be Stock 45 tunnel rather than stock 40. Edit: another name idea, perhaps it's time for us Americans to go metric and call it Stock 7.5 tunnel.
Since I think IMPBA needs some stock classes, that's the way I wrote them up. I realize there is not a concensus on which way this should go. Something to consider is if we start out with a stock class and later change our minds, nothing is lost. People will be able to do the internal mods when the rules change. However, if we start out with an anything internal goes class, it will be nearly impossible to go back to stock later on. The fact that it will obsolete the engines that have been modified will be used as an argument against it. Since there have been people asking for stock, and finite cost, racing, perhaps this is a good time to give it a try.
I thought about adding a $ limit for the engines to help keep costs down. I know of other types of R/C competition, combat for example, that did that and these classes have become some of the most popular. Right now there's only one manufacturer. If we put a price limit in place, it would provide a guideline for anyone else considering building them. Alternatively, market forces may keep the prices down. A really high performance, and high $, stock engine may not have a big enough market to make the minimum quantity worth producing. A lower $, but good performing engine would have a bigger market. Not including a $ limit certainly keeps the rules simpler, and eliminates the need for periodic price adjustments.
And finally, inspections. I hear the message loud and clear that some want them and some don't. So, what I did is wrote up straw man text for the different kinds of inspections. Then I prefaced this section by stating that the host club chooses what kind of inspection(s) they want to do. Hopefully, this will be a compromise that can work for everyone. If a club feels strongly about enforcement, they can use tear downs to ensure compliance. If a club doesn't want to go to that trouble, they can choose a simpler option such as the Go, No-go gauges.
I also included an engine claim, that was similar to what Don said ODMBA has adopted. This is also up to the host club to use or not use. If the class is going to be stock I feel that there should be some rules with teeth to discourage cheating. The threat of losing one's (modified) engine should be a pretty good deterrant. However, whether the engine claim gets used or not is entirely up to the host club. In thinking a bit more on this, if a club is going to permit engine claims, maybe that should be documented in the race flier. This lets the person with the modified engine stay home rather than travel to the race and discover at the driver's meeting that they are exposed to losing their engine. The host club will have to think about whether they do or do not want to use the engine claim. It might cause some people who have stock engines to stay home. However, Don's club has shown that there is a desire, at least in some clubs, for this type of rule. Other forms of R/C competition have engine claims in place, so it's obvious that they can be made to work.
stock_40.rtf
stock_40.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
Piper, is this the intent of the class?
Stock class engine rules are designed to forbid the racing of special, experimental, or custom built engines regardless of whether or not they qualify under the other sections of these rules.
If so let me know..
Grim
Now im going to take the time to read and comment about both your post and your rule set.
Thanks.
Grim
Stock class engine rules are designed to forbid the racing of special, experimental, or custom built engines regardless of whether or not they qualify under the other sections of these rules.
If so let me know..
Grim
Now im going to take the time to read and comment about both your post and your rule set.
Im very confused buy this.. can you better tell us why we would need a specifcation for both bores for a stock class?Since tunnel hulls are already pretty well defined, I just focused on engines. I don't know what to use for the carb bore, exhaust outlet, or hull minimum, so I just put ??? there for now. I also just realized that I mis-named the class. It should be Stock 45 tunnel rather than stock 40. Edit: another name idea, perhaps it's time for us Americans to go metric and call it Stock 7.5 tunnel.
Thanks.
Grim
piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
The intent is simple, to define a class that permits only stock engines.
When I first started writing I thought about leaving the specs out. However, I realized that would leave an opening for a manufacturer to develop an engine with a significantly larger carb and exhaust. Since it's been asserted many times in these threads that limiting the intake and outflow puts a cap on horsepower, it seemed reasonable that the class should specify limits to keep these sizes down.Grim
Now im going to take the time to read and comment about both your post and your rule set.
Im very confused buy this.. can you better tell us why we would need a specifcation for both bores for a stock class?Since tunnel hulls are already pretty well defined, I just focused on engines. I don't know what to use for the carb bore, exhaust outlet, or hull minimum, so I just put ??? there for now. I also just realized that I mis-named the class. It should be Stock 45 tunnel rather than stock 40. Edit: another name idea, perhaps it's time for us Americans to go metric and call it Stock 7.5 tunnel.
VansRacing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 635
Hope the attachment works...
I've written up some specifications. I used MS Word, but posted them here in rich text format and as a PDF. This should allow most people to view them. The posting window says there's less than 22k available for posting so I did not attach the Word version. If anyone wants it, shoot an email to me at [email protected] and I'll send it.
The format of the rules will probably look familiar, I used NAMBA's rules as a starting point. I did this partly because they already described a stock class. The other thing I liked about the NAMBA rules is they frequently write the rules for an entire type of boat, such as Sport Hydros, and then have a small section listing the engine and hull specs for each class. This makes it easier to add additional sizes later.
Since tunnel hulls are already pretty well defined, I just focused on engines. I don't know what to use for the carb bore, exhaust outlet, or hull minimum, so I just put ??? there for now. I also just realized that I mis-named the class. It should be Stock 45 tunnel rather than stock 40. Edit: another name idea, perhaps it's time for us Americans to go metric and call it Stock 7.5 tunnel.
Since I think IMPBA needs some stock classes, that's the way I wrote them up. I realize there is not a concensus on which way this should go. Something to consider is if we start out with a stock class and later change our minds, nothing is lost. People will be able to do the internal mods when the rules change. However, if we start out with an anything internal goes class, it will be nearly impossible to go back to stock later on. The fact that it will obsolete the engines that have been modified will be used as an argument against it. Since there have been people asking for stock, and finite cost, racing, perhaps this is a good time to give it a try.
I thought about adding a $ limit for the engines to help keep costs down. I know of other types of R/C competition, combat for example, that did that and these classes have become some of the most popular. Right now there's only one manufacturer. If we put a price limit in place, it would provide a guideline for anyone else considering building them. Alternatively, market forces may keep the prices down. A really high performance, and high $, stock engine may not have a big enough market to make the minimum quantity worth producing. A lower $, but good performing engine would have a bigger market. Not including a $ limit certainly keeps the rules simpler, and eliminates the need for periodic price adjustments.
And finally, inspections. I hear the message loud and clear that some want them and some don't. So, what I did is wrote up straw man text for the different kinds of inspections. Then I prefaced this section by stating that the host club chooses what kind of inspection(s) they want to do. Hopefully, this will be a compromise that can work for everyone. If a club feels strongly about enforcement, they can use tear downs to ensure compliance. If a club doesn't want to go to that trouble, they can choose a simpler option such as the Go, No-go gauges.
I also included an engine claim, that was similar to what Don said ODMBA has adopted. This is also up to the host club to use or not use. If the class is going to be stock I feel that there should be some rules with teeth to discourage cheating. The threat of losing one's (modified) engine should be a pretty good deterrant. However, whether the engine claim gets used or not is entirely up to the host club. In thinking a bit more on this, if a club is going to permit engine claims, maybe that should be documented in the race flier. This lets the person with the modified engine stay home rather than travel to the race and discover at the driver's meeting that they are exposed to losing their engine. The host club will have to think about whether they do or do not want to use the engine claim. It might cause some people who have stock engines to stay home. However, Don's club has shown that there is a desire, at least in some clubs, for this type of rule. Other forms of R/C competition have engine claims in place, so it's obvious that they can be made to work.
Piper,Thanks for taking the time to give this some serious thought. I have recieved a lot of e:mails and calls about the upcoming Sport Tunnel season. It looks like this is getting alot of racers excited and is well recieved.
Mark Hopper and I talked today and we both have thrown some ideas around concerning initiatives for both the 40 and 20 Sport Tunnel classes. In our discussion today, we wondered if there were any other manufactures of tunnels that would like to join us in the 2006 promotion. If so, let us know thru this thread or PM myself or Mark Hopper. We want to include everyone.
-Carl,
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
Carl and Mark,
Im very interested to see what you might have in mind. As tunnel boat designer (at least the 21 size stuff, so far) you have me very interested in any posible changes to this size class.
I feel there is a huge differance between adding and changing a class. Having said this i understand its good to standardize..
Please keep me posted in the progress of this. Thanks Guys
Mike Z
Im very interested to see what you might have in mind. As tunnel boat designer (at least the 21 size stuff, so far) you have me very interested in any posible changes to this size class.
I feel there is a huge differance between adding and changing a class. Having said this i understand its good to standardize..
Please keep me posted in the progress of this. Thanks Guys
Mike Z
VansRacing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 635
Mike,
Will do...
-Carl,
Will do...
-Carl,
EatMyShortsRacing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,254
I hope everyone is aware of the new K&B 7.5 outboard engine having a different bore / stroke to the old 7.5 outboard. I think we calculated about 7.8 cc by swapping liners between engines...
The two different 7.5 K&B outboards are built on two separate platforms.
One is built on the older 8702 platform.The other is the newer 7.5 Pro motor.
The parts from one will not interchange with the other.
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
When I first started writing I thought about leaving the specs out. However, I realized that would leave an opening for a manufacturer to develop an engine with a significantly larger carb and exhaust. Since it's been asserted many times in these threads that limiting the intake and outflow puts a cap on horsepower, it seemed reasonable that the class should specify limits to keep these sizes down.
If a MFG wants to buid a faster motor that is there right. Like us they are in competition too. You like Ford and I like Chevy.. if Ford builds a faster motor then Chevy, Chevy better step up to the plate to try to keep my business.. A motor with a larger bore.. I would buy that if they offered it.. However having a bore limit on a Stock motor seems like an oxymoron to me. Also what is the payback to the motor MFGs?
Can you see the money get spent if OS comes out with a Stock 7.5 engine and its faster then the K+B? Do you think that the K+B guys are going to stick with K+B.. not likey.. at say... 4 bills for a new OS 45 OB.. hum... anit no cheap in this class... aint no cheap in winning races.
Intent to me is... Who is the class geard twords? The new guy or the pro.. or both? Is it to be a cheap class? Is the intent to grow tunnel boat racing in IMPBA or just award a winner at the end of the day.
What you will find (this I can guarentee) the fast guys will still be winning the races and others will still be backmarkers. Its the nature of racing and a true break out is a guy that spends hours and hours and hours at the pond learning his set up and burning fuel.. If he starts to win... he deserves it. Nobody can deny him of this nor should they. He or her will get s--t for it but its the way it is.. I know..
Geting beat at the pond or the track is not a fun thing for allot of people untill they learn, and i mean realy accept that only one will win and all others loose. Odds arnt to good if you dont dedicate yourself. Not good at all. BTY.. Dedicate means you have likey spent lots of time at the pond.. this = dollars out of pocket... again anit no cheap in winning races.
Now.. if you had a true hand out speck class... you might get away with cheap and you would for sure put the skill of the hobbiest on the line. You want fair, inexpensive and equal racing? This is about as close as you can get.
One thing is for sure..
I will not intertain a change to the IMPBA B class Sport 21 Tunnel class as it is now.. The class works as is... Period.
If the members of the IMPBA want to start a new tunnel class (any size) have at it. Get your local club or clubs to champion the class and start at the ground level.. After it gets going lets talk IMPBA rule book.
ROCK ON Tunnel racers
Mike Z
If a MFG wants to buid a faster motor that is there right. Like us they are in competition too. You like Ford and I like Chevy.. if Ford builds a faster motor then Chevy, Chevy better step up to the plate to try to keep my business.. A motor with a larger bore.. I would buy that if they offered it.. However having a bore limit on a Stock motor seems like an oxymoron to me. Also what is the payback to the motor MFGs?
Can you see the money get spent if OS comes out with a Stock 7.5 engine and its faster then the K+B? Do you think that the K+B guys are going to stick with K+B.. not likey.. at say... 4 bills for a new OS 45 OB.. hum... anit no cheap in this class... aint no cheap in winning races.
Intent to me is... Who is the class geard twords? The new guy or the pro.. or both? Is it to be a cheap class? Is the intent to grow tunnel boat racing in IMPBA or just award a winner at the end of the day.
What you will find (this I can guarentee) the fast guys will still be winning the races and others will still be backmarkers. Its the nature of racing and a true break out is a guy that spends hours and hours and hours at the pond learning his set up and burning fuel.. If he starts to win... he deserves it. Nobody can deny him of this nor should they. He or her will get s--t for it but its the way it is.. I know..
Geting beat at the pond or the track is not a fun thing for allot of people untill they learn, and i mean realy accept that only one will win and all others loose. Odds arnt to good if you dont dedicate yourself. Not good at all. BTY.. Dedicate means you have likey spent lots of time at the pond.. this = dollars out of pocket... again anit no cheap in winning races.
Now.. if you had a true hand out speck class... you might get away with cheap and you would for sure put the skill of the hobbiest on the line. You want fair, inexpensive and equal racing? This is about as close as you can get.
One thing is for sure..
I will not intertain a change to the IMPBA B class Sport 21 Tunnel class as it is now.. The class works as is... Period.
If the members of the IMPBA want to start a new tunnel class (any size) have at it. Get your local club or clubs to champion the class and start at the ground level.. After it gets going lets talk IMPBA rule book.
ROCK ON Tunnel racers
Mike Z
piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
Yes, manufacturers are free to do whatever they want. Likewise, racers are free to tell the manufacturers up front what is acceptable for a certain class. The bore limit on the sport .21s was quoted as being done to help avoid obsoleting a large number of existing engines. The same argument holds for this proposal. If the manufacturers can make a faster motor within the bounds of the rules, great.
That's one of the reasons I gave some thought to a price limit, and higher minimum quantities. Part of the reason there "aint no cheap in winning races" is because of the refusal, to date, to establish any stock classes within IMPBA. How many people do you think you'll have in this new class if the only engine that's capable of winning costs 4 bills?
The intent of a stock class is to eliminate engine mods from being a factor in the competition. This does help keep costs down. The intent is to grow tunnel racing. There are plenty of classes now that allow whatever kind of mods a person wants to do. It's obvious that many people want a stock class, hopefully this will be a good opportunity to give them what they want.
A stock class helps ensure that the winning comes from setup and driving, not the money spent, or skills possesed, on engine mods. If the fast guy does this because he's better at setup and driving, so be it.
Get your hackles down, nobody said anything about changing Sport 21, the discussion here is a NEW class, Stock 45.
That's what this discussion is about, a new class. It seems you are saying that this discussion is somehow inappropriate and that everyone should go away and do what they want. Why not talk about it here and build some common rules now instead of after everyone goes off and creates 15 different sets of rules?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,721
I personally like the Port 21 Tunnel rules the way they are it is easy to tech for a CD and racers can have the engine teched before an event to find out before racing if the engine is legal. SImple and easy for all to understand. Before the sport rules were in palce IMPBA had 4 different "STOCK rules" around the country and you had to call a CD to find out what rules they were going by. Then you had the sticklers who even said use of locktite was wrong. The way it is now the reliability is there because you can use locktite the speed is pretty close for all racers or at least not unobtainable. If it is moved up to the 7.5 classes and larger I hope it stays with the Sport type rules.
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
Piper,
Having the boys build and champion a class IS listening to what the racers want. Why should i be the expert in telling them what works best for them? Guide them is my job..
Further more if we end up with 15 different classes (BTY i feel this is an exaggeration) the best will one or two will come out in the end..
If you said that i did not have the freedom to build any class i wanted.. lets say a Scale twenty class (witch BTY i was involved in writing the original rules for the class). Sport 20 might not have taken off with the fury that it did.. BAD? You tell me?
Piper let me be honest with you.. not to sound to off the wall here and i hope you do not take this wrong... Being a new member of the IMPBA (what you joined in June some time?) I appreciate the new view and moxy you have for making better boating for the IMPBA.. but think of this too... Some of the guy on there have hours and hours of better understanding.. Do you know what im saying? Both in Stock and in Sport and In Mod and in car racing and slots and aircraft and UC and...well the list goes on and on and on... These boys have been there done that...
I will not name names but more then just a FEW of the veteran guys on here can say "been there done that" . Using knowledge from them is just smart. Great thing is that they are willing to give it up too.. Again i understand the view from a new guy.. the new perspective.. I was one too back in 93 when I stated racing boats.. Remember allot like you, I had been playing with boats since 1979..
With this hole sport 45 thing...
I might be dumb but why would i go re tool a good working part? Set bore limits, follow the basic rules of sport 21 and get some gauges made..
THEN
Lets go racing...its working now.. the 21 class is the proof.. it can work for the 45s too.
ROCK ON
Grim
One last note…
Hope im not draging you iin to this Mr. Poole.. hope you are doing fine..
I think Mark Poole is a great example of what can or could happen.. I would not be surprised if in the future a MOD VP class was shown on a billing at some races.… If MOD VP grows to the point that it no longer can be ignored…. I / we would more then welcome MOD VP racing to IMPBA.. Until that point why would I / WE make the rules for the class? What do I know about MOD VP.. your right… not a dam thing.. this is Marks baby… Mark has the right to run as high and as hard as he wants with the class…
Set some MOD VP rules
Get some buddies running the boats
Champion the class
HAVE SOME FUN
Having the boys build and champion a class IS listening to what the racers want. Why should i be the expert in telling them what works best for them? Guide them is my job..
Further more if we end up with 15 different classes (BTY i feel this is an exaggeration) the best will one or two will come out in the end..
If you said that i did not have the freedom to build any class i wanted.. lets say a Scale twenty class (witch BTY i was involved in writing the original rules for the class). Sport 20 might not have taken off with the fury that it did.. BAD? You tell me?
Piper let me be honest with you.. not to sound to off the wall here and i hope you do not take this wrong... Being a new member of the IMPBA (what you joined in June some time?) I appreciate the new view and moxy you have for making better boating for the IMPBA.. but think of this too... Some of the guy on there have hours and hours of better understanding.. Do you know what im saying? Both in Stock and in Sport and In Mod and in car racing and slots and aircraft and UC and...well the list goes on and on and on... These boys have been there done that...
I will not name names but more then just a FEW of the veteran guys on here can say "been there done that" . Using knowledge from them is just smart. Great thing is that they are willing to give it up too.. Again i understand the view from a new guy.. the new perspective.. I was one too back in 93 when I stated racing boats.. Remember allot like you, I had been playing with boats since 1979..
With this hole sport 45 thing...
I might be dumb but why would i go re tool a good working part? Set bore limits, follow the basic rules of sport 21 and get some gauges made..
THEN
Lets go racing...its working now.. the 21 class is the proof.. it can work for the 45s too.
ROCK ON
Grim
One last note…
Hope im not draging you iin to this Mr. Poole.. hope you are doing fine..
I think Mark Poole is a great example of what can or could happen.. I would not be surprised if in the future a MOD VP class was shown on a billing at some races.… If MOD VP grows to the point that it no longer can be ignored…. I / we would more then welcome MOD VP racing to IMPBA.. Until that point why would I / WE make the rules for the class? What do I know about MOD VP.. your right… not a dam thing.. this is Marks baby… Mark has the right to run as high and as hard as he wants with the class…
Set some MOD VP rules
Get some buddies running the boats
Champion the class
HAVE SOME FUN
piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
Unfortunately, it looks like I will take it the wrong way. I was wondering when the ad hominems would begin, looks like I've got my answer. Guess it would have been better for me to have tried to get my old IMPBA number back, the one I had in the 80's.
Yes, many people have been doing this longer than I have. I've said it before, and I'll say it one last time, there are plenty of examples of low priced, stock competitions out there. If the competitors want to make them work, they will work. If stock classes are such a problem, why are they among the most popular in R/C combat? Why did the ODMBA overwhelmingly vote for one? It's clear that stock classes are desired, and that they work. Why not shake things up a bit and take advantage of this opportunity to try one instead of just maintaining the status quo? After all, the membership trend hasn't exactly been positive in recent history. Maybe it's time for some new thinking...
Edit: yes, I did just get back into racing in June. In less than one full season I managed to stir up enough interest that 20 Tunnel and 40 mono are now part of the races in a club that was almost exclusively gas (the only nitro class was 20 hydro). Amazing what will happen when the leadership allows enthusiastic people to run with their ideas.
Clearly defined and enforcable rules can be written to make stock classes work. People who want to cheat to win will comply, or quit, after they get caught a few times. Will this cause hard feelings? Sure, but at the end of the day does it really matter whether someone who would cheat people who are supposed to be friends is a bit irritated? I say no, let them be irritated, if they are willing to cheat others, they deserve it.
I've made my opinion known, but it's clear that since I'm not one of the old boys, I should just sit back and be quiet. It's unfortunate that input from enthusiastic people is met with (paraphrasing) "you are new here, you don't know what you are talking about" responses. Before this turns into another round of disparage the "newcomer", I'll try to keep the peace by bowing out of the discussion. Carl, best of luck with this, hope my input has helped some. PM or email me if you want me to help behind the scenes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
Piper
All that was said was to listen to what others say too.. maybe the voice of experience..
I just do not understand what is broken with sport tunnel racing? On that same note I do not understand what you mean by.....After all, the membership trend hasn't exactly been positive in recent history...... im seeing the opposite?.. are you taking about Tunnels here? You do know that almost 1/4 of the boats at this years internats were tunnels RIGHT.. BTY what was the largest class?
Piper.. im confused by your drive to fix something that is not broken.. Not so much the drive but the broken.. I respect your drive..
IF YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO START A STOCK TUNNEL CLASS YOU HAVE MY BLESSING.. Im not stopping you.. Hell.. nobody is stopping you... If it grows to the point that it is the greatest thing going lets get it in the books.. IT SOUNDS LIKE FUN TO ME....
Mike Z
All that was said was to listen to what others say too.. maybe the voice of experience..
I just do not understand what is broken with sport tunnel racing? On that same note I do not understand what you mean by.....After all, the membership trend hasn't exactly been positive in recent history...... im seeing the opposite?.. are you taking about Tunnels here? You do know that almost 1/4 of the boats at this years internats were tunnels RIGHT.. BTY what was the largest class?
Piper.. im confused by your drive to fix something that is not broken.. Not so much the drive but the broken.. I respect your drive..
IF YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO START A STOCK TUNNEL CLASS YOU HAVE MY BLESSING.. Im not stopping you.. Hell.. nobody is stopping you... If it grows to the point that it is the greatest thing going lets get it in the books.. IT SOUNDS LIKE FUN TO ME....
Mike Z
Bob Kensill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,546
I was IMPBA outboard director for 10 years before Mike,and I can tell you that you will play holy h**l trying to get two members to agree on a stock class. I listened to all the ideas and complaints and then started to write a set of rules. The board rejected any rule that required any kind of teardown. I only know a handful of guys that even know what a stock engine is,and most of them would tell you that they could build an engine that would pass inspection and outrun most stockers. Take a lesson from NASCAR,stock is for cheaters.
Chuck,
What I think is not being expressed here and what was my misintepretation of the class is the reasoning behind the "sport" class. The class was the work of Rod Geraghty and Tommy Lee to allow tunnel racing to thrive at a time when K&B was the only mfg of 3.5 motors and when there were periods of time that you couldn't get motors at all. So they thought, Gee, how do we make this work?? (I'm sure Rod used different wording.. )... Old K&B's were everywhere but deemed inferior to the newer motors so either you had the latest greatest K&B or you were destined to 2nd place. The ruling of the Sport class allows the older, watercooled engine that can be found on ebay or someone's basement cheaply to be reworked and made competitive with the newer engines at half the price. Seems like a great thing to me as was evidenced by the overwhelming popularity at the 2005 Internats.
Another point on contention with box stock that I think you are encountering which is being explained is, what is box stock? What CD other than a handful of people are going to know what box stock 1979 is vs 1989 vs 1999. Geraghty has this great little display of 5 differnt P/S's, water nipples, etc. of the 3.5 K&B engine over the years. I am not sure who in the world would know which part came with which engine.
Sure, box stock is enforceable. And people have had successful rules and guidelines to make a successful race program. But given the popularity of 3.5 Sport Tunnel, why wouldn't you follow the example in 7.5 with the hopes of increasing the popularity of 7.5 tunnel. Even here in D8 the heart of NAMBA they run a Sport version for 3.5 tunnel if that tells you anything..
DISCLAIMER:
Geraghty, Grim, Tommy please feel free to correct anything that I have stated that is not the truth or some version of it..
Whew.. Just my thoughts for the days..
Charley
Right on, Bob...
What I think is not being expressed here and what was my misintepretation of the class is the reasoning behind the "sport" class. The class was the work of Rod Geraghty and Tommy Lee to allow tunnel racing to thrive at a time when K&B was the only mfg of 3.5 motors and when there were periods of time that you couldn't get motors at all. So they thought, Gee, how do we make this work?? (I'm sure Rod used different wording..
)... Old K&B's were everywhere but deemed inferior to the newer motors so either you had the latest greatest K&B or you were destined to 2nd place. The ruling of the Sport class allows the older, watercooled engine that can be found on ebay or someone's basement cheaply to be reworked and made competitive with the newer engines at half the price. Seems like a great thing to me as was evidenced by the overwhelming popularity at the 2005 Internats.Another point on contention with box stock that I think you are encountering which is being explained is, what is box stock? What CD other than a handful of people are going to know what box stock 1979 is vs 1989 vs 1999. Geraghty has this great little display of 5 differnt P/S's, water nipples, etc. of the 3.5 K&B engine over the years. I am not sure who in the world would know which part came with which engine.
Sure, box stock is enforceable. And people have had successful rules and guidelines to make a successful race program. But given the popularity of 3.5 Sport Tunnel, why wouldn't you follow the example in 7.5 with the hopes of increasing the popularity of 7.5 tunnel. Even here in D8 the heart of NAMBA they run a Sport version for 3.5 tunnel if that tells you anything..
DISCLAIMER:
Geraghty, Grim, Tommy please feel free to correct anything that I have stated that is not the truth or some version of it..
Whew.. Just my thoughts for the days..
Charley
Right on, Bob...
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,721
Another problem is the guys that have an in at the manufacture and hand pick parts for a perfect fit when you can pick and choose parts from over a dozen selections is the really fair to a guy that buys one engine. That is why stock never went over in IMPBA.
Grimracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,509
Good thought bill.
Think about this.. if stock.. and somehow you draw attention to the MFGs..
How hard do you think it would be for a importer or MFG to assemble a team of good drivers that race there stock motors at a cost of...say.. 0 to the racer.. If they want it money is not going to get in the way.. Do you think there team will get the good stuff.. ? Best fits and engine builders.. darn right.. Dont think you can get a hot stock motor put together by a good engine builder.. ? Crazy talk man.. this is just crazy talk...
Dont think this had happen in the past either.
I raced USRA BOX STOCK 15 slot cars for a number of years... Got the trophies to prove how much money you can spend and how fast you can build a "STOCK" motor.. I even made a Video called motor building 101.. sold the crap out of them... 10 grand in a box you could carry in one hand is not a good thing.. it’s a disease.
Know how i did so well.. o yea that little word "Dedication"... learn the craft, the art of kicking ass. The guy that drove me, beat me for over a year straight.. i just could not catch him.. BUT when i did he never and i mean NEVER beat me again.. true story.. this was a Florida state, nats and world champion driver too...
Now after all your hard work.. get your motor back in a plastic zip lock bag.. some dumb asses would even pull off the brush hoods…
Not that any of the above has anything to do with boat racing its just my way of saying.. BEEN THERE DONE THAT
Grim
Think about this.. if stock.. and somehow you draw attention to the MFGs..
How hard do you think it would be for a importer or MFG to assemble a team of good drivers that race there stock motors at a cost of...say.. 0 to the racer.. If they want it money is not going to get in the way.. Do you think there team will get the good stuff.. ? Best fits and engine builders.. darn right.. Dont think you can get a hot stock motor put together by a good engine builder.. ? Crazy talk man.. this is just crazy talk...
Dont think this had happen in the past either.
I raced USRA BOX STOCK 15 slot cars for a number of years... Got the trophies to prove how much money you can spend and how fast you can build a "STOCK" motor.. I even made a Video called motor building 101.. sold the crap out of them... 10 grand in a box you could carry in one hand is not a good thing.. it’s a disease.
Know how i did so well.. o yea that little word "Dedication"... learn the craft, the art of kicking ass. The guy that drove me, beat me for over a year straight.. i just could not catch him.. BUT when i did he never and i mean NEVER beat me again.. true story.. this was a Florida state, nats and world champion driver too...
Now after all your hard work.. get your motor back in a plastic zip lock bag.. some dumb asses would even pull off the brush hoods…
Not that any of the above has anything to do with boat racing its just my way of saying.. BEEN THERE DONE THAT
Grim
VansRacing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 635
Hey guys,
Lots of e:mails to read here...and on my personal e:mail. Lots of reasonable and good suggestions being thrown around. Bill Zuber called me today and left a message telling me about what kind of time lime we have to get this done and things are going to have to get in high gear in order to to get all this done if we want to even stand a remote (no pun intended) chance of having a rule passed in time for the 2006 race season.
-Carl,
Lots of e:mails to read here...and on my personal e:mail. Lots of reasonable and good suggestions being thrown around. Bill Zuber called me today and left a message telling me about what kind of time lime we have to get this done and things are going to have to get in high gear in order to to get all this done if we want to even stand a remote (no pun intended) chance of having a rule passed in time for the 2006 race season.
-Carl,
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Sticky
