Outboard Motor verses Inboard Motor that acts like an Outboard

[Baxter Walton]

Also can the whole motor be removed as one unit or bolted on as one unit? Jerry I am surprised at you.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an_outboard_engine

 

[RonShaw]

Also can the whole motor be removed as one unit or bolted on as one unit? Jerry I am surprised at you.

Baxter,

It is mounted on a turntable INBOARD or forward of the stern or transom. Even if he did make it such that it can be removed as an entire unit, unless it's aft of the stern or transom it is still classified as an INBOARD or INBOARD/OUTBOARD, thus not legal in the Outboard Tunnel Class. Can you believe some of the comments here?

 

[RonShaw]

More information for this discussion on Outboards and Inboard/Outboards for those that may have forgotten:

Wikipedia :

A sterndrive or inboard/outboard drive (I/O) is a form of marine propulsion. The engine is located inboard just forward of the transom (stern) and provides power to the drive unit (outdrive) located outside the hull.

 

[Slideblues]

As far as the rules,

Sounds like a question for the IMPBA OBD for one.........

Oh James?

Gene

 

[Baxter Walton]

Ron its plain and simple, is it in or out of the boat, I would need to see a picture of it. If it is not mounted on the outside of the boat some kind of way, weather its on the sides of the hull in the front of the hull or in the rear of the hull then it is an Inboard. Clearly if it is mounted inside the transom, then it would be considered a inboard. Hey what can you do?

 

[tunneltime]

wow what have I started here, this is crazy. I just have too bite my tongue right now, ...................

 

[Baxter Walton]

wow what have I started here, this is crazy. I just have too bite my tongue right now, ...................

:huh:

 

[RonShaw]

As far as the rules,Sounds like a question for the IMPBA OBD for one.........

Oh James?

Gene

Actually, it is a decision for the IMPBA technical review committee. Only problem, two of the three positions are vacant. John Finch is the technical review mono member, the technical review chairman and hydro members are vacant. Any takers? With all of this controversy on such basics of our hobby, I may end up putting my name in the hat. There are two positions open. Anyone else?

 

[Kris Flynn]

OK just to clarify, I am not worried IF I had to race John (or anyone over here wanting to try it), as Jerry said it does not give him an advantage (yet?). More things to go wrong.

To me, thinking outside the box is a good thing, I am not saying I will do what John has done, I prefer to have an outboard off the back, BUT why is it so bad? Are you worried about looks, or a performance advantage?

1 more thing, I have not see his unit properly, anyone got a pic?

 

[jaxracer]

I understand where Ron is going with this, and while everybody else is correct about it meeting the rules for the outboard class, it does not meet the definition of an "outboard" soley based upon the fact that it is not mounted on a transom outside of the hull.

Therefore, it does not matter if it meets those rules consisting of, "The tunnel outboard classes shall not lock down engines nor use an auxiliary steering

system," because it is not an outboard to begin with. Those rules were designed for a boat already meeting the qualifications of an "outboard," which defines as an engine mounted outside of the hull.

So technically Ron is correct. The majority of hulls using that lower configuration are technically not legal outboards.

But it's not really that big of a deal to fix based on my suggestion of creating a new transom for the unit to mount to. In reality, by adding that wedge shaped block for a transom, it won't affect the hull perfance wise. It won't make a difference having it vs. not having it. It's just is a simple solution to meet the definition of "outboard" to avoid a protest. Use the lower, because that's by rule legal, but just create a make-shift transom to mount it to so that way you won't have to spend the weekend defending whether your boat is legal or not.

-Jr.

 

[Mark Poole ModVP]

Well, one thing we don't need is an inboard tunnel class. I have seen a couple of outboard tunnels converted to inboard (true inboard). It is legal to run these in any hydro class. The rule book for both organizations is clear on this. Anything that does not meet the rules of a mono must/can run in hydro. Any type of hydro and/or air entrapment hull including outriggers and canards can run in hydro.

Ron, I see where you are coming from. The rule book does say it must all turn together and be one unit.

Now, another simple way to restrict how far forward the engine is mounted (or hangs over) would be to put a percentage limit on it in relation to the length of the hull. On a 30 inch boat if the powerhead is hanging 5 inches into the boat and the engine is more horizontal than vertical then I think that goes against what rc outboards were built for in the first place. Crap, for a straightaway boat you could hang the engine 10 inches over into the boat and the thing would only have to turn enough to get it around for two passes. Not what I call an outboard.

 

[RonShaw]

OK just to clarify, I am not worried IF I had to race John (or anyone over here wanting to try it), as Jerry said it does not give him an advantage (yet?). More things to go wrong.
To me, thinking outside the box is a good thing, I am not saying I will do what John has done, I prefer to have an outboard off the back, BUT why is it so bad? Are you worried about looks, or a performance advantage?

1 more thing, I have not see his unit properly, anyone got a pic?

Kris,

It's not about whether it's competitive or has an advantage. again, it's about upholding the integrity of the outboard classes. Why is it so bad? Because it is against the rules and if allowed opens the door for this to get totally out of control. If this is not nixed right now, these types of rigs will be showing up in all of the outboard classes including outboard hydro, gas outboard, and outboard FE classes. We need to. Stick to the basic rules here, and has been my point through this whole thread. It has been well described within this thread and I am Su re someone has a picture to share eventually, maybe even John himself.

 

[jaxracer]

I think what everybody is missing is the fact that Ron's point has nothing to do with a competitive advantage or not. It has to do solely with the definition of an outboard. Which the basic definition of an outboard is a motor mounted outside of the hull on a transom.

He's not talking about whether it meets this rule or that rule under the IMPBA or NAMBA standards. He's just basing his argument off of the definition, which like I said earlier, I believe he's right. It's just something that was never brought to my attention until now.

It doesn't matter if it was a contraption that made somebody have the slowest tunnel at the pond. If it's not mounted to a transom, then it's not an outboard. That's all he's trying to say.

At a race would I protest somebody that had a hull configured like Shane's or Otto's? Probably not because it's not significantly enhancing his performance any and it's close enough to the rules where it still resembles an outboard tunnel. Could I protest it and possibly get someone's boat disqualified? Absolutely.

-Jr.

 

[HTV Boats]

http://www.directboats.com/shwamudmo.html

There are different outboards out there and I prefer the regular off the transom motor. The units in question are variations of Joe Calegaros design for gas outboards. He made them to address the weakness in G-Morty and lawless breaking flex shafts. Ottos efffort was to accomodate the power and reliability of the CMB motor and mount it lower than the conventional RC lowers allow. The definition of an outboad is literally stretched but it does pivot moving the whole unit to steer. It meets the rules but does put the weight of the motor well into the center section of the hull. Again I don't feel the look is scale but to ban the innovation would not be good either. Is it a racing advantage? I have run more heats against John and this setup probably than anyone else. He has lost more times than not because of handling issues but it is fast in a straight line. Now John being the tunnel guy he is will figure out how tio make it handle and be as hard to beat as ever. In the mean time he and Shane will be beating themselves more than others beat them. Will they become the norm? I don't think so. I welcome the competition but it will be a very long time before I'll convert to this drive. I do not feel they hanndle better.

Now as a SAW boat it might be an advantage. But is it any more "illegal" or just inovation similar to Tommy Lee's record oval boat with the turn fin on the outside? I am a purist who thinks stumble pads are riding points in a turn that makes a tunnel designed to ride on two points a hydro but they have helped move rc tunnel racing forward as these are not scale replicas.

Sorry Ron I am with you in spirit but as long as this thing pivots as a unit it still is an outboard by deffinition. Making a transom regulation for vertical or horizontal would be hard to do after the fact now. You could also inset the transom 3-6 inches which has been tried.

Mic

 

[RonShaw]

I think what everybody is missing is the fact that Ron's point has nothing to do with a competitive advantage or not. It has to do solely with the definition of an outboard. Which the basic definition of an outboard is a motor mounted outside of the hull on a transom.
He's not talking about whether it meets this rule or that rule under the IMPBA or NAMBA standards. He's just basing his argument off of the definition, which like I said earlier, I believe he's right. It's just something that was never brought to my attention until now.

It doesn't matter if it was a contraption that made somebody have the slowest tunnel at the pond. If it's not mounted to a transom, then it's not an outboard. That's all he's trying to say.

At a race would I protest somebody that had a hull configured like Shane's or Otto's? Probably not because it's not significantly enhancing his performance any and it's close enough to the rules where it still resembles an outboard tunnel. Could I protest it and possibly get someone's boat disqualified? Absolutely.

-Jr.

Jr,

I appreciate your and Marks input. You get it so my hats off to you. You both are spot on with your responses. Have tunnel racers gotten lazy over the years? Why were these designs ever allowed to race in the outboard classes in the first place? I spent the most part of the day trying to get my point across and you two summed it up in two simple responses. This type of design should not be allowed whether its competitive or not as it's not an outboard, period. If they want to run in the INBOARD Hydro class, go for it. I can promise you that I kept my comments to myself in Charleston, but if I attend any further races where this type of design is entered and raced for the first heat, I will file a formal protest. If this design is further allowed to race in the OUTBOARD classes, it will open the door for heat racing and SAW for the other classes I mentioned above, using these designs that do not follow the outboard classes as they were created. I also urge any of you that attend races where these designs are entered into the outboard classes to do the same.

 

[RonShaw]

http://www.directboats.com/shwamudmo.html
There are different outboards out there and I prefer the regular off the transom motor. The units in question are variations of Joe Calegaros design for gas outboards. He made them to address the weakness in G-Morty and lawless breaking flex shafts. Ottos efffort was to accomodate the power and reliability of the CMB motor and mount it lower than the conventional RC lowers allow. The definition of an outboad is literally stretched but it does pivot moving the whole unit to steer. It meets the rules but does put the weight of the motor well into the center section of the hull. Again I don't feel the look is scale but to ban the innovation would not be good either. Is it a racing advantage? I have run more heats against John and this setup probably than anyone else. He has lost more times than not because of handling issues but it is fast in a straight line. Now John being the tunnel guy he is will figure out how tio make it handle and be as hard to beat as ever. In the mean time he and Shane will be beating themselves more than others beat them. Will they become the norm? I don't think so. I welcome the competition but it will be a very long time before I'll convert to this drive. I do not feel they hanndle better.

Now as a SAW boat it might be an advantage. But is it any more "illegal" or just inovation similar to Tommy Lee's record oval boat with the turn fin on the outside? I am a purist who thinks stumble pads are riding points in a turn that makes a tunnel designed to ride on two points a hydro but they have helped move rc tunnel racing forward as these are not scale replicas.

Sorry Ron I am with you in spirit but as long as this thing pivots as a unit it still is an outboard by deffinition. Making a transom regulation for vertical or horizontal would be hard to do after the fact now. You could also inset the transom 3-6 inches which has been tried.

Mic

Mic,

No need to apologize. You have the right to your opinion. I won't hold it against you!!!!..... Pivots as a unit by definition is only the definition of the steering or propulsion definitions of an outboard. The description OUTBOARD states a definition all it's own. Outboards must be mounted outboard of the hull, period. Outboards mounted forward of the stern or transom are Inboard/Outboards. This has been the standard all boat designs have followed and we must stick to them as well or we are creating a path that us outboard tunnel boaters will not like in this hobby going forward. I agree with Jr, if a protest on one of these designs is forced, I have all the confidence in the world in the IMPBA, that it will be upheld, or all of the outboard classes across the board, are in jeopardy.......

 

[Eddy de Vries]

A bit old, but UIM (1997) circuit rules defined an outboard as follows:

​

523.02

​

An outboard motor is a mechanical propulsion assembly which can be removed from the boat as a single unit, complete with its transmission, and which does not transmit the power through the hull at any point.

​

Any mechanism intended to modify the angle of attachment and/or the height of the motor is authorized.

​

The motor thus taken off and placed ashore must be capable of being started, fed by its fuel tank.

​

The mounting supports fixed to the boat, the control levers, the tachometer with its connections, the battery with its conductors and the fuel tank and fuel lines do not form part of the power unit.

​

523.02

​

Only one propulsion device is allowed and the total effort must be applied to the water.

​

523.03

​

When the propulsion is of the water jet type, the jet may be ejected in the air.

​

523.04

The transmission is free.

​

Rgds, Eddy

​

 

[topfuel443]

Wow... I leave for one day and come back to 6 pages of 'discussion'. Thats a good thing.

My orginal reply still applies here. The boat IS LEGAL as its built, due to our OWN written rule book, and apprently with NAMBAs as well. If you want that to change, you must submit a proposal to change the wording in the rule book. Thats the bottom line. Our rule book does not quote wikipedia, or any other source as to the true definition of 'outboard' in relation to model boating. And until it does, Ottos, and Shanes creations should and will be allowed to run in the outboard classes, simply because they adhere to the current restrictions that are written.

The engine and lower will unbolt together as a unit, does not go through the hull (like a stuffing box) and the engine and lower both turn together to turn the boat.

Is it a loophole? Probably.

Does it need to be fixed? The membership should decide.

I dig the passion Ron, you have the power to make the change with a proposal if you choose.

**EDIT:** I should probably point out, like Ron has, I am the IMPBA Outboard Director. I am NOT a Technical Director. I often offer advice if something is specific to Outboards, but I do not hold the power to make any formal decisions on a technical matter, that is left up to the Technical board. // Disclaimer - The above is simply my opinion, backed up with a few written facts.

 

[RonShaw]

Wow... I leave for one day and come back to 6 pages of 'discussion'. Thats a good thing.
My orginal reply still applies here. The boat IS LEGAL as its built, due to our OWN written rule book, and apprently with NAMBAs as well. If you want that to change, you must submit a proposal to change the wording in the rule book. Thats the bottom line. Our rule book does not quote wikipedia, or any other source as to the true definition of 'outboard' in relation to model boating. And until it does, Ottos, and Shanes creations should and will be allowed to run in the outboard classes, simply because they adhere to the current restrictions that are written.

The engine and lower will unbolt together as a unit, does not go through the hull (like a stuffing box) and the engine and lower both turn together to turn the boat.

Is it a loophole? Probably.

Does it need to be fixed? The membership should decide.

I dig the passion Ron, you have the power to make the change with a proposal if you choose.

**EDIT:** I should probably point out, like Ron has, I am the IMPBA Outboard Director. I am NOT a Technical Director. I often offer advice if something is specific to Outboards, but I do not hold the power to make any formal decisions on a technical matter, that is left up to the Technical board. // Disclaimer - The above is simply my opinion, backed up with a few written facts.

James,

I appreciate you making the edited statement as I was already in the process of typing!!!!!......... I respectfully disagree with your post. I believe everyone is getting caught up in the propulsion definitions and totally overlooking the one definition that rules, OUTBOARD. The definition of OUTBOARD was established long ago and has held the test of time. I don't think the original IMPBA membership felt is was necessary to define in the rules as it has been established for many years. The only OUTBOARD definitions that needed to be established in the rules were for propulsion and turning. These definitions were established to set the rules between OUTBOARD Tunnels and OUTBOARD Hydros. The term OUTBOARD speaks for itself. This all needs to be nixed now as it is far reaching and can affect all of the classes I mentioned in a prior post. The term OUTBOARD engine establishes an engine/drive unit that is mounted aft of the stern or transom, period. If we want to propose changes of definitions as to how far in the hull, (%), the transom can be placed that is open for discussions, but the term OUTBOARD was established long ago..........

 

[Baxter Walton]

Ron you are 100% right, the only problem is that this line has never been cross in this way. So things need to be re-written.

When the O/B tunnel class was started. It was based off the scale tunnels. The O/B class is dead where I am at, and I have to fly to race, I just hope that this kind of thing does not hurt you all in the IMPBA.