Last chance on a Sport Hydro rule for 2006

[drobie]

Don't have time to call, got to go to work in minutes.

I'll be around all day Monday if ANYBODY wants to call, even just to say hello. :lol:

800-792-3590 (If I step away from this phone, it's just to get the mail or load the wood furnace or something.)

Cell: 608-575-4395 (On my hip.)

Latest revisions:

1. 3e split into 2 paragraphs

2. power parameter corrected from N to N2

3. The word "minimum" dropped from 3f (3f is now 3g because of the paragraph split).

4. "a minimum of" inserted into 3a"

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

If the transom came to a point on the deck - would that mean it has zero width? I think not. Lose the word minimum in 3f if you want, but I have one of Frank's hydros, and I believe it's legal according to the rules Doug has posted.

Tunnel = 4-13/16"

Transom = 2-1/2" (at the bottom)

My math says about 52%. Anyone getting something different?

That is 52% across the bottom of the transom, not at a point on top of the deck. If 60% was still the minimum, the boat would be very easily viewed as outside the limits. Not what the rule indended.

Rule 2d sez: Boats which do not resemble real full-scale designs (i.e. outriggers, modified outriggers, canards, tunnels or catamarans) will not be allowed to race as Sport Hydroplanes.

Outriggers are outlawed by 2d. Because of that, a transom width rule really isn't needed.

As long as the transom width rule is made harmless (by taking out the minumum), it won't effect sport boats that are within "the spirit", like Frank's boat.

I am not trying scuttle this whole attempt (like someone else in the heavily-biased forum), just trying to eliminate unintended consequences.

KW

 

[drobie]

I am not trying scuttle this whole attempt (like someone else in the heavily-biased forum), just trying to eliminate unintended consequences.

KW

That is understood, Kevin. We all want the same thing.

I had removed the word "minimum" but I understand that others had trouble with that. Leaves open the possibility that someone could measure the top of the transom when in fact the bottom is much narrower.

There is still 2e but I supposed someone could argue Frank's hulls are not mass produced. Maybe "mass produced" has to be changed. Would "commercial" work? If guys like Frank sold one hull, they'd be OK.

It's a daunting task...trying to be all inclusive but including enough meat to keep out those who want to circumvent the "spirit" and "intent".

I'm open to suggestions, but feel my hands are tied by majority preference in terms of dropping 3f (now g.)

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Isn't the key: rule 2d?

Boats which do not resemble real full-scale designs (i.e. outriggers, modified outriggers, canards, tunnels or catamarans) will not be allowed to race as Sport Hydroplanes.

Seems pretty obvious to me, that means that outriggers are illegal.

So, why then would a minimum transom width rule even be needed? I sure don't know.

I've heard many different versions of a min. transom width rule over the last 5 years or so. Kuntz was the first one that I heard bring it up. And, neither he (or anyone else) has figured out how to make a version that actually eliminated outriggers and didn't cause unintended side-effects against true sport hulls. I tried a few times and gave up completely.

KW

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Rule 3-g should read

The width of the bottom of the transom shall be no less than 60% of the width between the inside edges of the front sponson planing surfaces. The transom will be no wider than the narrowest portion of the afterplane. Wings attached to the aft portion of the hull may be used but will not be considered as part of the transom width.

We must have this rule to stop the people that design there own boats, or design boats that will end up being kits.

 

[drobie]

I agree Kevin, but need some consensus.

The argument I keep getting is essentially that 3g is for idiots who UNFAIRLY try to waltz around 2d.

Look at it this way, looking forward and for future designs, it probably is a good thing.

I have to use this example but it's absolutely not a criticism of Frank. Would his hulls have lost performance if he had added a lttle to the transom width? I doubt it.

Again, I'm just brainstorming and this is unprecedented.

What if there was an additional paragraph to the effect that:

"CD's should give leniency to the technical aspects of these rules for scratch builders who clearly adhered to the spirit of the class when they built sport hulls or created molds that now just miss some measurements."

 

[drobie]

The question may have been asked about this specific hull, but on the other board: Do we want a boat like the yellow one in the middle to be able to run as an FE Sport Hydro? Nitro obviously allows them but they don't allow outriggers either.

If we do, 3g can be dropped.

If we don't, then MAYBE 3g bought to be left in.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Looks like the afterplane width is around 50% as wide as the tunnel.

Another 1/2" inch or so wider and this modified outrigger meets the "60% rule" as it has been proposed.

I would say that the "60% Rule" doesn't work.

Focusing on transom width only, will not prevent some modified outrigger (like the one pictured) from getting through.

Including some sort of specifications on the width of the bottom, for example: (minumum 100% of tunnel width (TW) at the rear sponson edge, minimum 80% of TW at the center point of the afterplane, and minimum 50% of TW at the transom) will prevent boats like the one in the picture. NOT THAT I AM PROPOSING THAT.

Getting it done right the first time would be nice, though.

If there absolutely HAS to be a minimum 60% of TW at the transom bottom, there should be an exception for triangular-shaped non-strip surfaces which were common on classic hydroplanes, like this Lauterbach unlimited Miss Owensboro:

http://www.unlimitedsdetroit.com/images/the70s/owensbro.jpg

That Lauterbach unlimited is clearly less than 60% of tunnel at the bottom of the transom.

KW

 

[drobie]

Looks like the afterplane width is around 50% as wide as the tunnel. If there absolutely HAS to be a minimum 60% of TW at the transom bottom, there should be an exception for triangular-shaped non-strip surfaces which were common on classic hydroplanes, like this Lauterbach unlimited Miss Owensboro:

That Lauterbach unlimited is clearly less than 60% of tunnel at the bottom of the transom.

KW

I'm not sure you answered my "do we want these" question. What happens when nitro starts to run FE. They will expect to be able to run those hulls if we're using their rules as we are now. It's an important question. (For the whole membership, not just you Kevin.)

Sport 21 rules specify "tub width" at 4". Doesn't say anything about where to measure the tub. You have to assume it's at the transom.

I asked a real active nitro leader if any of them had a problem with that yellow boat running as an SH. He no, but ONLY because it meets the rules. ("Only was capitalized in the email response to my question.)

Just for reference, a Bandit Larsony with a 4" transom would be 53%. A DH shovel is 65% and some change. Nearly all sport hydros commonly run today are 65% or better. 65% was the orginal number, but then someone mentioned a Phil Thomas hull and the thought was: "Heck 5% is only 1/4 inch, .375 in. on a Larsony sized hull.

I've been spoon fed all these technical measurement and frankly, I'm not sure what to do.

Maybe your exception for "classic" hydros is the way to go. But then we have to define "classis".

It's giving me a headache.

Anybody else?

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Here is a link to lauterbach boats, If you look at the pictures of there hulls I think they all meet the 60% at the bottom of the transom.

http://www.lauterbachboats.com/

When I came up with the 65% originally.

All of Mr. Finley’s + Roger N.'s plans which can build about 150 boats + all the hulls that are now available from Fine, Fuller’s, ETC. + many other custom made hulls that are now been raced by our members.

The one with the smallest transom at the bottom was the Timex that came in at 65%

The rule as been set at 60% which will give future boat builders some room to play.

Larry

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

You can look at the Lauterbach website. You can look at the picture of the Lauterbach-built unlimited, Miss Owensboro that I linked to.

Are all Lauterbach boats wide enough to pass the proposed 60% rule?

Judge for yourself.

Larry is also trying to claim that all of Roger Newton's boat plans pass the 60% rule. How can that be? He has drawn up plans for the Miss Owensboro, the Miss Chrysler Crew, and several others that have the same narrow transom. Not to mention the Winston Eagle (lobster boat). Let's stick to facts and not make wild claims.

Doug, if the concern is keeping the specs as close to Nitro so as to attract racers from their ranks, then just mirror what they already have in place.

I don't think the sport hydro in the picture is a true sport hydro. But, if you want to be like the nitro guys, you gotta accept it.

My opinion is that, if (big IF, too) nitro guys convert to electric, it isn't going to be because the rules were nearly identical.

Maybe we could wedge a few away by sticking to true sport boats and not allowing the hybrids that they have let slip in under the radar.

"Just for reference, a Bandit Larsony with a 4" transom would be 53%. A DH shovel is 65% and some change. Nearly all sport hydros commonly run today are 65% or better. 65% was the orginal number, but then someone mentioned a Phil Thomas hull and the thought was: "Heck 5% is only 1/4 inch, .375 in. on a Larsony sized hull."

No wonder you have a headache. :wacko: The Larsony is the only boat among those that is anywhere near big enough for a .21. The others are all way too small so, the measurements mean just about nothing.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

kEVIN

The question was asked if 65% min. transom width would be OK for Sport Hydro.

The answer came back, yes all would fit.

Baybe he does not consider the Winston Eagle and other narrow transom boats Sport Hydro's

Larry

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

OK, dug through boxes. Found the plans.

Newton plan set #117 Miss Chrysler Crew.

Tunnel width = 10-1/8"

Transom width (at bottom) = 5"

That is less than 50%

Please hurry back to tell me why I am wrong, Larry.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Kevin

Nobody ever said you were wrong.

I have only given the measurments that were given to me by other people.

You design your own boats, and good ones at that.

If the min. transom measurement were reduced any more, we will end up with boats like the yellow one in the picture that Doug posted.

Is this what you would like to see in Sport Hydro?

If you look deep enough you will find old hulls that were round on the bottom at the transom also.

We must remember that this is not a scale class.

We are trying to set rules for Sport Hydro that will stand for a long time.

The rules that we have now, with all the references to this and that, and sometimes nothing, have to be changed. Some classes actually had no rules, because there was nothing on the other end that the reference pointed to.

Larry

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

As it is proposed, the 60% rule would allow the same boats (like the one in the picture) with about a 1/2" wider tub. That would be the same boat, that 1/2" more width means nothing.

The 60% rule won't work right as it is written right now. I think most people would agree. Maybe I am wrong, who knows.

Don't forget:

The 60% rule is only one tiny piece of the rule set.

I would advise fixing it or leaving it out of the set. Add it later, when someone comes up with something that really takes care of that potential problem. Maybe people working on just that one item by itself, instead of the rule set in whole (as it has been up until now), an accurate solution can be found.

KW

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Kevin

Originally it was to be set at 65%Min. transom width at the bottom.

After all the measurments,the one with the smallest transom at the bottom was the Timex that came in at 65%

Do you think this would be better??

Larry

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Kevin

Originally it was to be set at 65%Min. transom width at the bottom.

After all the measurments,the one with the smallest transom at the bottom was the Timex that came in at 65%

Do you think this would be better??

Larry

All the measurements?

It appears that some of the measurement were missing.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Kevin

Do you want the yellow boat to run in Sport Hydro??????????

Larry

 

[drobie]

I would advise fixing it or leaving it out of the set. Add it later, when someone comes up with something that really takes care of that potential problem. Maybe people working on just that one item by itself, instead of the rule set in whole (as it has been up until now), an accurate solution can be found.

KW

A thoughtful suggestion worth considering.

That's the **** thing about this rule and it's naysayers. It isn't going to really change anything that we're doing now except have more boats that people are already running will be legal.

That's why I am sincerely concerned about how it affects Frank. He is the only one I have heard about so far that could be adversely affected by 3g.

Someone just told me regarding a rule change that "Destroying the commonality with nitro Sport Hydro is extremely counter-productive for both nitro and electric, and for model race boating in general."

Still scrathin' my head.

If we tried to convert to nitro with their tub widths, an LSH could have a 3.6" transom. Brian could take an inch off of the Dark Horse. An H&M Exzess could almost run in P Sport.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

[someone just told me regarding a rule change that "Destroying the commonality with nitro Sport Hydro is extremely counter-productive for both nitro and electric, and for model race boating in general."]

Sounds like an extremely far-fetched argument for the status quo.