Mutt II leagality

[Mark Anderson]

It seems that some one lodged a protest against my boat in IMPBA.

A little history first.

In the mid 90's I decided to get back into sport 40 with the intent of going after a nationals title. Russ Natchweih had a new design that I decided to try. The boat was good but not what I wanted. I spent the next couple of years reworking what I thought to be the problems with the boats that were available at the time. The boat progressed quickly. Russ won a nationals with a set of the prototype sponsons. I set about every NAMBA record there was with a wood version of my current boat. Gary Preusse set a bunch af IMPBA records with a wood boat. People started calling wanting me to produce the boats so I started building wood/glass composite boats. It soon became apparent that I needed to go all glass. I made a couple of minor changes to make the boat easier to pull from a mold and built molds. Eric Bourlet and I have now won several NAMBA nationals in sport 40 and 40 hydro with the glass version that has now been in production for 9 years with alot of that production going east.

Jump ahead to today. I was contacted by an IMPBA official saying that the air traps were to wide for the IMPBA rules. I suggested that people could simply add a thin piece of wood to the bottom of the airtrap to get it down to the allowed 1/8 inch. He said that what he interpretted the drawing in the rule book to mean was that no part of the air trap could be wider than 1/8. This was one of the mods that I made to make the boat easier to pull from the mold. I simply brought the non trip down to the bottom of the air trap. From his interpretation a glass boat would have to have wood airtraps added. You can not pull a straight 1/8 inch wide plate from a mold. He sent me a copy of the rule book and I see no written rule about air traps just a drawing that shows a simple dimension. The way that the dimension is drawn it looks to me that it is referencing the width of the bottom. I was of the impression that the rule was to keep from making the bottom of the air trap from becoming a riding surface. Narrowing the bottom to the 1/8 seems like it would accomplish this.

I am writting this to give all of my customers a heads up on what is going on. I hope it can be worked out.

Mark

 

[SayMikey]

It seems that some one lodged a protest against my boat in IMPBA. A little history first.

In the mid 90's I decided to get back into sport 40 with the intent of going after a nationals title. Russ Natchweih had a new design that I decided to try. The boat was good but not what I wanted. I spent the next couple of years reworking what I thought to be the problems with the boats that were available at the time. The boat progressed quickly. Russ won a nationals with a set of the prototype sponsons. I set about every NAMBA record there was with a wood version of my current boat. Gary Preusse set a bunch af IMPBA records with a wood boat. People started calling wanting me to produce the boats so I started building wood/glass composite boats. It soon became apparent that I needed to go all glass. I made a couple of minor changes to make the boat easier to pull from a mold and built molds. Eric Bourlet and I have now won several NAMBA nationals in sport 40 and 40 hydro with the glass version that has now been in production for 9 years with alot of that production going east.

Jump ahead to today. I was contacted by an IMPBA official saying that the air traps were to wide for the IMPBA rules. I suggested that people could simply add a thin piece of wood to the bottom of the airtrap to get it down to the allowed 1/8 inch. He said that what he interpretted the drawing in the rule book to mean was that no part of the air trap could be wider than 1/8. This was one of the mods that I made to make the boat easier to pull from the mold. I simply brought the non trip down to the bottom of the air trap. From his interpretation a glass boat would have to have wood airtraps added. You can not pull a straight 1/8 inch wide plate from a mold. He sent me a copy of the rule book and I see no written rule about air traps just a drawing that shows a simple dimension. The way that the dimension is drawn it looks to me that it is referencing the width of the bottom. I was of the impression that the rule was to keep from making the bottom of the air trap from becoming a riding surface. Narrowing the bottom to the 1/8 seems like it would accomplish this.

I am writting this to give all of my customers a heads up on what is going on. I hope it can be worked out.

Mark

I was approached by a racer at our last weekends meet who wished to protest the newer Mutt2 Hull. As Technical Chairman I am compelled to assess the situation and have found that the air traps on the newer all glass Mutt 2 hulls are illegal. I am working with IMPBA Board members and Mark to find an answer. As of now we dont have a fix. The rule clearly stated AIR TRAPS 1/8 INCH WIDE MAX. These are much wider than that and adding a piece and sharpening the trap is not the answer. If we did that parts of the trap would still be too wide. If you have one of these hulls be prepared to make it IMPBA legal before racing at a sanctioned Event. While im sorry there is a problem builders must check rules before mass marketing them or we all lose. This rule has been in effect since 1989. Sorry for any concerns and if you need further information please email me at [email protected] Ps I will not get into a Political bashing of Mark Anderson or IMPBA as both have contributed a lot to model boating Mike Schindler IMPBA Technical Chairman

 

[rctinman]

OK guys, an airtrap starts at the sponson transom, and extends toward the hull transom, and it may or may not end at the hull transom. The depth of an airtrap starts at the bottom of the hull, and extends to what ever depth the builder wishes. By enforcing your above ruling, where the airtrap cannot be anymore than 1/8" thick the entire depth of the airtrap, anywhere on the airtrap, you have now just made every Phil Thomas hull illegal, because they measure .650 at the base of the airtrap just behind the sponson transom, and it measures .200 at the base of the airtrap nearest to the hull transom because of the fillet. All MTO roundnose hulls have airtraps over 1/2" wide, although they end 10" from the hull transom. And with this ruling you will have to kick out any wood hull that has a fillet at the base of the airtrap where it is attached to the hull, because it will be more than 1/8 of an inch at the base of the airtrap. Yes, I own a Mutt II hull, but I also own an MTO hull, and a Thomas, and wood hulls. etc.

You really, really need to rethink this, or you might as well sh##can the class.

Steve Ball

IMPBA

National Scale Unlimited Director

 

[Mike Hughes]

Those are some good points Steve. Maybe it is a matter of changing the rules than outlawing a boat. I know that in NAMBA the ruling was changed with the strakes at the nose of the boat for monos. That was because all the Seaducers were illegal. The strakes had to be straight all the way along the hull. The seaducers curved at the nose of the boat to the tip. It did not inhance the boat so the rule was changed. The rule looks like it is trying to avoid having ride shoes at the back end of the boat. Anyone would owns a Mutt 2 (woodglass or all glass) will tell you that the strut is set to an 1"+ from the bottom of the hull to the center of the shaft. The air trap comes no were near to riding the waters surface. I believe the same to be true with MTO and the Phil. I bet there are a few more hulls out there that have the same problem. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out as I own the woodglass and glass Mutt2 hulls. Luckily I am NAMBA.

Mike

 

[Don Ferrette]

Gee I sure didn't see anyone from NAMBA jumping up & saying they should re-think their rule when it came to Phil's boat not being legal. <_<

 

[Mike Hughes]

Don

That rule has a simple fix. I can have in done in 5 min with $2 worth of stuff. Your rule basically will make every mold useless. I know what is involved in making a production mold that will stand up to multiple extraction. Every mold would have to start over. New plugs and everything. This is not adding material to meet a rule. It is taking material away the gives the boat its strength. Now lets forget about the manufacture. How about the people that own some the hulls. There is no way to fix the boats. You would be cutting up a large part of the boat and then trying to get it together again with the same strentgh. Just not going to happen. This is a major problem with more than one hull and it looks like you guys are going to have a ***** fest over this one. With 2 months till nats, do you think anyone is going to go get a new boat that meets the rules? I doubt it. Nats will not be having a sp 40 class because most of the hulls are illegal. You guys have a major problem and I wish you all the luck in trying to fix it. It would be nice if there was a $2 skirt the rule fix.

Mike

BTW I think they are working on changing that rule in NAMBA. There was not enough time to get it done before nats.

 

[Don Pinckert]

Those are some good points Steve. Maybe it is a matter of changing the rules than outlawing a boat. I know that in NAMBA the ruling was changed with the strakes at the nose of the boat for monos. That was because all the Seaducers were illegal. The strakes had to be straight all the way along the hull. The seaducers curved at the nose of the boat to the tip. It did not inhance the boat so the rule was changed. The rule looks like it is trying to avoid having ride shoes at the back end of the boat. Anyone would owns a Mutt 2 (woodglass or all glass) will tell you that the strut is set to an 1"+ from the bottom of the hull to the center of the shaft. The air trap comes no were near to riding the waters surface. I believe the same to be true with MTO and the Phil. I bet there are a few more hulls out there that have the same problem. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out as I own the woodglass and glass Mutt2 hulls. Luckily I am NAMBA.Mike

Steve, Mike. Anybody, Everybody. ---- YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE RULES TO MAKE AN ILLEGAL BOAT LEGAL. ---- P-E-R-I-O-D. ---- You change the boat.

Mark, Run boats that putts along at thirty mph and you got no problems. If not, read ALL of the rules and dot the I's and cross the T's.

I have had boats outlawed, both Namba and Impba. I have heard a lot of 'snickers', but, never a smidge of 'sympathy'.

Incidently, the word is spelled 'legality'. ---- You crazy, mutant ---- boat guys.

Don Pinckert

 

[Don Ferrette]

Granted the fix for Phil's hull is easy but that's not the point. Yeah it's a can of worms right now but the rule in question has been in place since 1989. This is going to get messy I have a feeling..... h34r:

And BTW- as for the curved strakes on a Seaducer not enhancing it, grind off the curved parts & see what happens when the boat goes into a turn, it's that way for a reason. I know someone who tried it, said the results were not pretty..... :blink:

 

[Mark Anderson]

Don your not getting it. Because of Mike's enterpretation Plil's boat is illeagle too. As are most other glass sport 40 boats. Are they all being told they won't be allowed? Nope seems it's just me.

 

[piper_chuck]

Jump ahead to today. I was contacted by an IMPBA official saying that the air traps were to wide for the IMPBA rules. I suggested that people could simply add a thin piece of wood to the bottom of the airtrap to get it down to the allowed 1/8 inch. He said that what he interpretted the drawing in the rule book to mean was that no part of the air trap could be wider than 1/8. This was one of the mods that I made to make the boat easier to pull from the mold. I simply brought the non trip down to the bottom of the air trap. From his interpretation a glass boat would have to have wood airtraps added. You can not pull a straight 1/8 inch wide plate from a mold. He sent me a copy of the rule book and I see no written rule about air traps just a drawing that shows a simple dimension. The way that the dimension is drawn it looks to me that it is referencing the width of the bottom. I was of the impression that the rule was to keep from making the bottom of the air trap from becoming a riding surface. Narrowing the bottom to the 1/8 seems like it would accomplish this.

In addition to the vague drawing with 1/8" scribbled in, look at section K Technical standards. In hull classifications part 2.a 3-Point Suspension hull you will find the following statement "Air trap devices shall be a maximum of .125" across the bottom surface for engine class B or larger with no restriction on depth..." This seems to be saying that the 1/8" in the (extremely vague) drawing was the bottom of the air trap, not the entire thing.

 

[P THOMAS]

In addition to the vague drawing with 1/8" scribbled in, look at section K Technical standards. In hull classifications part 2.a 3-Point Suspension hull you will find the following statement "Air trap devices shall be a maximum of .125" across the bottom surface for engine class B or larger with no restriction on depth..." This seems to be saying that the 1/8" in the (extremely vague) drawing was the bottom of the air trap, not the entire thing.

Thanks Chuck you must be a lawyer :lol:

All this sport rule stuff can be a headache at times The Namba guys finally checked out my boat after many people have had it racing for many years and found a possible rule problem and brought it to light. NO problem with that, no CD wants to be confronted with a protest.

The Mutt boat has the same deal just trying to avoid a protest.

IMPBA has a formal protest procedure to follow

I would think Mark is correct, all that has to be done is narrow up the bottom of the air traps to 1/8th to meet the IMPBA rule.

PHIL THOMAS

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don your not getting it. Because of Mike's enterpretation Plil's boat is illeagle too. As are most other glass sport 40 boats. Are they all being told they won't be allowed? Nope seems it's just me.

Mark I do get it. I have already let others on the board that like the IMPBA illustration shows the measurement should be taken across the lowest point of the air trap. It is not quite correctly drawn to measure at any other point than that. I personally have no beef with you or your hull BUT the ultimate responsibility of meeting the rules, however vague they might be, falls on the builder. :blink:

 

[Eric Bourlet]

Gee I sure didn't see anyone from NAMBA jumping up & saying they should re-think their rule when it came to Phil's boat not being legal. <_<

You are wrong about the issue. In the last NAMBA news letter I wrote an article addressing the subject. And I even worked with Phil to point out that the rule in NAMBA makes no sense to me and that I will submit a rule change proposal to get it removed. In the mean time I told Phil that all that would need to be done to make a PT boat and any other Sport 40 that does not meet this rule, meet the rule as it reads is to glue a 1/4" by 1/4" block of material next to the belly pan even with the back of the sponsons. Yes I think this is silly but it keeps the boats on the water till we can get a rule fixed that no one remembers why it was written. I don't envy Mike Schindler he is most likely stuck in a political pickle the same as I was. I don't get guys that would rather beat a guy on the bench than beat him on the water. I got the word out to all NAMBA members early enough for them to show up at are nats and be able to run. I will even have some stupid little blocks to make the boats legal at the race just in case someone has not heard yet. I did not find out in time to get the rule change made before the NAMBA nationals or we would have fixed it, It will be taken care of right after the Nationals. By the way I think your going to find that the same page in your rule book that outlaws the Mutt hulls makes every production Sport 40 illegal in IMPBA. The drawing clearly outlaws any "Bottom Extensions" page H9. That clearly outlaws all belly pans in Sport hulls. You have an exception specifically written into your Scale rules to allow belly pans but not in your Sport rules. Lets all stop this petty BS. Maybe Mike and I can take this opportunity to get our Sport rules more closely aligned.

Eric Bourlet

NAMBA Sport Hydro Chairman

 

[Don Ferrette]

Maybe Mike and I can take this opportunity to get our Sport rules more closely aligned.

So far I think that's the best sentence to come out of this thread.

 

[piper_chuck]

In addition to the vague drawing with 1/8" scribbled in, look at section K Technical standards. In hull classifications part 2.a 3-Point Suspension hull you will find the following statement "Air trap devices shall be a maximum of .125" across the bottom surface for engine class B or larger with no restriction on depth..." This seems to be saying that the 1/8" in the (extremely vague) drawing was the bottom of the air trap, not the entire thing.

Thanks Chuck you must be a lawyer :lol:

Gosh Phil, what a thing to call me!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Russ Nachtweih]

Easy Fix, just glue a 1/8" X 1/32" strip to the bottom of the Non Trip.

 

[piper_chuck]

By the way I think your going to find that the same page in your rule book that outlaws the Mutt hulls makes every production Sport 40 illegal in IMPBA. The drawing clearly outlaws any "Bottom Extensions" page H9. That clearly outlaws all belly pans in Sport hulls. You have an exception specifically written into your Scale rules to allow belly pans but not in your Sport rules.

In the same section I quoted a few posts ago, there is a statement that reads: "Airfoils, wings, air dams, ground effects devices, etc., shall have no limitation, considering no hydrodynamic support is gained from the device." These words don't appear to be in the similar section in the NAMBA rules.

Maybe Mike and I can take this opportunity to get our Sport rules more closely aligned.

I think this would be great. I like the way the NAMBA book defines a single set of sport hydro rules and then lists dimensions for each class.

 

[Mike McKnight]

Don I'm not sure I agree with your statement that the responsibility falls entirely on the builder. Eric and I had this conversation last night actually. If the builder is selling most of his hulls to racers that belong to one organization, and maybe he too is a member of that organization, he is familiar with its rules and builds his hulls accordingly. So then someone from another organization with different rules buys one and finds out that it doesn't meet the rules for his organization. How is the builder going to know until he gets input from that buyer that it won't work for his rules? Eric and I discussed this at length last night because where he is no one has an SS45. Where I am we've had several for about 5-6 years and for some bizarre reason no one caught it. SoCal was running mainly Muck and Mutt hulls until the last couple of years. If the builder doesn't have the info or isn't alerted to it by one or the other organization how is he supposed to bear all of the responsibility for this?

I am having to work with all of our CrackerBox guys with the same kind of problem. The builders are selling hulls that don't meet the NAMBA rules. It is a long story but the short of it is that NONE of them meet the 3 degrees of V at the transom rule. My biggest complaint about that rule is that if you look at a real Cracker, and these are supposed to be scale to a real boat in appearance, there isn't any V AT ALL at the transom. I had the bruised ribs and back to prove it. When I raced kneeler outboards I got conned into being the "Riding Mechanic", which is another name for "Sceaming Rider", on one of those boats for half a season. In this case the builders probably bear all of the brundt of criticism but in the Sport hulls I don't think so.

 

[piper_chuck]

Don I'm not sure I agree with your statement that the responsibility falls entirely on the builder. Eric and I had this conversation last night actually. If the builder is selling most of his hulls to racers that belong to one organization, and maybe he too is a member of that organization, he is familiar with its rules and builds his hulls accordingly. So then someone from another organization with different rules buys one and finds out that it doesn't meet the rules for his organization. How is the builder going to know until he gets input from that buyer that it won't work for his rules? Eric and I discussed this at length last night because where he is no one has an SS45. Where I am we've had several for about 5-6 years and for some bizarre reason no one caught it. SoCal was running mainly Muck and Mutt hulls until the last couple of years. If the builder doesn't have the info or isn't alerted to it by one or the other organization how is he supposed to bear all of the responsibility for this?

It's hard to imagine that someone who has reached the point where they are designing, building, and selling sport hydros isn't aware that there are two organizations out there. Don't both organizations have procedures for having a technical review done on the hull? It seems that anyone who wants to offer a hull to the general public for a specific class should make sure their product complies with both organizations. If it doesn't, perhaps they should clearly document what is and isn't approved so their buyers know what they are getting. If they haven't sought approval, just say so.

It would also be nice if the organizations could maintain a public list showing boats that have been specifically approved, and perhaps those known to not be legal (with a list of what's wrong and perhaps how to fix). This would provide an incentive for builders to go through the approval process. It would also cut down on the chatter since once a boat is "approved", there is no need to go through this type of discussion again.

 

[Eric Bourlet]

Don I'm not sure I agree with your statement that the responsibility falls entirely on the builder. Eric and I had this conversation last night actually. If the builder is selling most of his hulls to racers that belong to one organization, and maybe he too is a member of that organization, he is familiar with its rules and builds his hulls accordingly. So then someone from another organization with different rules buys one and finds out that it doesn't meet the rules for his organization. How is the builder going to know until he gets input from that buyer that it won't work for his rules? Eric and I discussed this at length last night because where he is no one has an SS45. Where I am we've had several for about 5-6 years and for some bizarre reason no one caught it. SoCal was running mainly Muck and Mutt hulls until the last couple of years. If the builder doesn't have the info or isn't alerted to it by one or the other organization how is he supposed to bear all of the responsibility for this?

It's hard to imagine that someone who has reached the point where they are designing, building, and selling sport hydros isn't aware that there are two organizations out there. Don't both organizations have procedures for having a technical review done on the hull? It seems that anyone who wants to offer a hull to the general public for a specific class should make sure their product complies with both organizations. If it doesn't, perhaps they should clearly document what is and isn't approved so their buyers know what they are getting. If they haven't sought approval, just say so.

It would also be nice if the organizations could maintain a public list showing boats that have been specifically approved, and perhaps those known to not be legal (with a list of what's wrong and perhaps how to fix). This would provide an incentive for builders to go through the approval process. It would also cut down on the chatter since once a boat is "approved", there is no need to go through this type of discussion again.

Chuck, I know that at least one hull was never intended for production; it was built, run, won, set records and people kept bugging the builder to make and sell them. I truly don’t think there are that many guys that do this for more than just a hobby and they probably build a boat for themselves to race in their sanctioning body. No there is no process to have a hull blessed by a committee in NAMBA. Heck it’s hard enough to get people to help clean up the rules let alone participate in some power wielding committee. One huge problem is rules that are open to interpretation that is why I have always fought any rule proposal that was not a hard fact based rule. One that you can take a ruler and any one can see if it passes or not. This is not an easy thing to do. We also have the old problem of some of the old timers not wanting the two sanctioning bodies to work together to clean things up. I guess the old guard thinks it’s in the best interest of model boating to have ambiguities in the rules so they can drum them up at the last minute to keep someone faster than them off the water. It will take some of the newer members getting involved and take back the organizations from the bullies that try to use the rule book to keep people off the water rather than use the book to keep everyone on the water and playing by the same rules. It’s time to step up and get involved so the class chairs can get this taken care of we only can do what the majority of members (or the ones that speak up) want.