P Limited Hydro IMPBA.

Help Support intlwaters.com:

longballlumber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
1,376
Yes Sir. But we would like to build our own P Hydro also. Parts for those Horizon hulls are a bare to get and we plan on either getting some ML or PT hulls to make FE. With the price of Nitro going up and Plugs going and I don’t see them going down we plan on switching to GAS and FE and soon as we run out of fuel. Plus our local club is building a strong support for FE and Indy had a nice FE club also that we would love to run with.

Just an FYI, the Indy Admirals Club isn't sanctioned in IMPBA or NAMBA...
 

Fred685

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
183
I'm no FE expert but I have run P and P limited for a few years. A few years back there was a big speed difference between the two. Now, following the NAMBA rules, there isn't much difference in speed. At the speeds P limited is running now, the boat needs to be bigger, ESC needs to big bigger and you need to run parallel packs to have the capacity for 6 laps. I don't see a need to have both classes anymore. I would love to see a real "limited" class that would entice newcomers. It would have to be cheap and simple for it work. Limiting only the can size doesn't make the class cheap or simple for the new guy. My suggestion is to limit battery size and weight. It would be easy to police with a scale and tape measure. That is the only way I can see of limiting cost and speed. You can only pull as many amps as your battery can provide for your 6 laps. I'm sure there are problems with this idea, but not being an FE expert, I don't see them.
 

HTV Boats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,445
I'm no FE expert but I have run P and P limited for a few years. A few years back there was a big speed difference between the two. Now, following the NAMBA rules, there isn't much difference in speed. At the speeds P limited is running now, the boat needs to be bigger, ESC needs to big bigger and you need to run parallel packs to have the capacity for 6 laps. I don't see a need to have both classes anymore. I would love to see a real "limited" class that would entice newcomers. It would have to be cheap and simple for it work. Limiting only the can size doesn't make the class cheap or simple for the new guy. My suggestion is to limit battery size and weight. It would be easy to police with a scale and tape measure. That is the only way I can see of limiting cost and speed. You can only pull as many amps as your battery can provide for your 6 laps. I'm sure there are problems with this idea, but not being an FE expert, I don't see them.

I think what your seeing is more as P/Limited is growing it is getting into the hands of experienced racers who are just better at setup and props so speeds are getting better. Normal evolution. A full P is going to be faster. Especially in heat race water where extra power and weight will prevail.
If you want to keep costs down, can size limitations will work but they are not end all. As motors get larger there are generally larger more expensive ESC's required.
Battery could be limited to a single pack and weight limit. That then would be argued what weight limit just as can size has been debated.
Then comes enforcement and post race inspection which makes more work for people running the event.
. Mic
Simple can size is easy to measure and for the most part other racers can visually detect a ringer.
 

darryl whitman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
399
Hi guys , here's my input- make it simple cost wise, an fun for the new people, an or others that want to have fun in a low cost hobby. sport 20- 20 size rigger,
1. motor non time able 36x60 cost 75.00. KV between 1800 to 2030 only
2. esc 60 amp max. cost 80.00
3. battery 4 cell max count.
to many rules will an has Killed both classes an we need to get new blood in this hobby . thanks Darryl
 

Doug Smock

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
932
"I think what your seeing is more as P/Limited is growing it is getting into the hands of experienced racers who are just better at setup and props so speeds are getting better."

That is laughable.;) The 10 year P Limited argument persists. It must have problems...LOL Good grief there are affordable P Class motors out there. "Limited" is GONE!! What you have now is P- Minus. Build P class boats so you can tech them with a volt meter and a ruler. Darryl the ESC limit won't fly. Will it Mic? LOL We had a ESC limit in D13 for years. When the district caved on the ESC limit that was the beginning of the end. And now with dimensions and rewinds you have 200+amp controls in some boats and cans so full of copper and rotor you couldn't drive a straight pin in them with a sledge hammer. We had a good run with the classes while they lasted. My grand kids will enjoy the boats at the local park.
 

HTV Boats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,445
"I think what your seeing is more as P/Limited is growing it is getting into the hands of experienced racers who are just better at setup and props so speeds are getting better."

That is laughable.;) The 10 year P Limited argument persists. It must have problems...LOL Good grief there are affordable P Class motors out there. "Limited" is GONE!! What you have now is P- Minus. Build P class boats so you can tech them with a volt meter and a ruler. Darryl the ESC limit won't fly. Will it Mic? LOL We had a ESC limit in D13 for years. When the district caved on the ESC limit that was the beginning of the end. And now with dimensions and rewinds you have 200+amp controls in some boats and cans so full of copper and rotor you couldn't drive a straight pin in them with a sledge hammer. We had a good run with the classes while they lasted. My grand kids will enjoy the boats at the local park.

Since you mentioned me by name I assume you want to rattle my cage. Your ESC limit was one manufactured product that cost $80 when you can buy a superior ESC for $50. Much like one approved motor the products in the market keep changing along with different manufacturers. Things become obsolete. Using physical dimensions on motor 36X60 solves that. The internal mods are less an issue that your think. With all of your efforts to degrade and kill the class it continues to grow and is the base of new FE growth. Eliminate P/L and offer only full P and Q and watch your numbers decline.
Yes Don can make a motor pull 3 watts. Will it go 6 laps? It is right where it belongs setting records where the purpose is to push the limits. A certain few keep saying the "sky is falling" but I see classes still growing. It is not as simple as packing copper wire to make power.
If cost is a concern put a $100 motor limit. Enforce it with a claiming rule. You win and anyone in your class can buy your motor for $100 at the end of the day. No one will risk a super one off custom wind to surrender it for $100.
Another option is limit battery by weight. Easy to inspect. Forget manufacturers stickers or ma rating. Example if you limited a 4 cell to 600 grams you would accommodate pretty much all 5000ma packs. Parallel you have to br under 600g both batteries together. Yes I can find some 7000+ma packs under that weight but they are crap and I would not use them. Low C rating and B grade cells. You can't run 3 watts and pull 200+ amps long without 10000 plus ma.
Doug if you put as much positive effort in as you keep berating the class we might move forward. The D-13 rules did not keep up with market progress. Well intentioned but you can't write them in stone that way. Can the masses still buy an AQ 80 amp and AQ 2030? Good luck with that. The electronic world is progressing at a fast pace. As a group we need to address and adapt. Rules will never be perfect for everyone. Funny how NASCAR changes rules all the time yet they have grown to be the top motorsports venue. How many times have I heard I won't watch them anymore. Yet they attract new fans every day.
Mic
 

T.S.Davis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
565
You're wasting your time Mic. IMPBA is an immovable object where FE is concerned. Likely less stressful to accept that IMPBA and FE are acquaintances at best. It's made my life better doing so.

Some form of FE classes with limitations have existed in FE since right around 2003 or 2004. IMPBA refused to include any of them. If you want to race FE....NAMBA. If you want to race nitro or gas.....either or.
 

Samuel Hagan JR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
4,302
Reason I started this thread was because our FE numbers are growing every month. Our club in Madison IN started out with 4-5 FE boats. Now we are at 15-18 FE boats. With more being built. If it don’t work in your area doesn’t mean it won’t work in others. Maybe IMPBA will clean it up. Maybe not. But it looks like a lot of people wish it would be something similar to what NAMBA has.
 

Doug Smock

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
932
Mic. you may remember a thread a few years ago where I suggested the cheap 60 amp ESCs but you took issue with that too so you can save the BS. 10 years in and the classes are still causing heartburn. Make up all the rules you want. Don has been working for three years and still hasn't found the "limit" on what can be done with those dimensions. If you have to ask if they'll make six laps you haven't been paying close enough attention. Until he or someone else finds the limit the classes aren't "limited". Time to get back to basics. Volt meter, and a tape measure. It doesn't get any easier.

Anyone really interested in the nightmare can go do a search on limited classes at offshoreelectrics.com.

See ya at the pond fellas.
Going on vacation........;)
 

Grimracer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
8,800
Doug has a VERY good point.. the rules NEED to be outside of the ever changing technology. Voltage and a tape measure.. as rudimentary as that is, it SOLVES the issue of today and tomorrows FE racing boat.

OR.. we will have this VERY conversation AGAIN.. in 10 years.. in the mean time racing will take place BUT FE growth will be slowed from confusion.

Grim
 

Samuel Hagan JR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
4,302
Well let’s move on from what was said 2-3 years ago or even 10 years ago. What’s it gonna hurt to make the rules the same as namba. And if they need tweaking the members can vote on it like any other class rule change.
 

RaceMechaniX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
2,936
I would also agree that P-Ltd has run its course and is very difficult to find a fair performance neutral solution. I know the pressures both FE directors are/were under to come up with a replacement/new rule set when the AQ/Proboat motors supply dried up. It's not an envious position! NAMBA made a straightforward rule set that is easy to tech and allows sufficient freedom to accommodate different motors including all previous motors plus Leopard, Neu, Lehner and rewound variants. The AQ UL-1 motor could pull about 90-100A consistently, but was on the edge for burning up the insulation. The rewound motors are running 140-150A fairly reliably so I am told. The TP3630 runs around 125-130A. So we have about 30-50% more power at a very reliable level.

A national level rules set does two important things. It establishes a specific rule set for record trials and Nationals. At the club level, each club generally states what is permissible. Most seem to follow the 36x60mm without additional specs, but it's open to each club to add further bounds.

Specifically for IMPBA, why not keep P-Ltd or P-Lite at the club level and if and when we have a Nationals, the organizer can publish a P-Lite rule set.

I know some guys maybe looking for additional SAW classes to run since the records would be open if approved. I don't believe we need another 4 classes.
 

HTV Boats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,445
I guess I agree with Terry. NAMBA though not perfect for all is working. If IMPBA mirrored NAMBA rules 95% of this discussion would fade away. Adding a class that is being run and growing, how is that a problem. Gas adds classes like popcorn and like it or not they are exploding in new members.
Mic
 

T.S.Davis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
565
Cuz I'm annoyed again.......rant coming. Brace yer self F'y

Length x width is not hard to tech. Nor is it confusing. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse it could not be any easier to tech. You know the size of your shoe. If you wear a 10 you don't go buy a 14 and then go.......will this be okay?

Who knows more FE guys than me? Can't be many. Maybe Chris Hoffman. Steve Vacarro? I represent NAMBA D2 but also the guys that proposed limited to IMPBA. My texts and emails aren't filled with rants over the NAMBA limited rules. The most common correspondence I get is...........how come IMPBA doesn't have any limited rules? I get that question from IMPBA certified contest directors by the way. The answer is simply this........they don't want them. Not fair.....the BOD does't want them. The racers are racing them so.......draw yer own conclusion. The BOD doesn't want them primarily because they are told there is a great controversy. Some great debate. They were told this when we were running brushed motors in LSH and LSO back around 2005. They ignored that growth. They were told that when we were running the brushless motor list in 2009. They ignored that growth. Now they are being told the same thing again about the 36mm x 60mm specification. They'll ignore this growth too.

You guys that race limited, ever been asked about it by your DD? Surely some have. I haven't. 20+ years and countless rule proposals to both organizations. Proposed limited back in 2009 to NAMBA. Proposed it to IMPBA. Never been asked about it at all by my local IMPBA guy. Our IMPBA DD lives in the same city as our home pond where we hosted 18 races. Never saw him there. Not once. Hosted an FE IMPBA FE nats.......DD didn't breeze through to check it out. Our club proposed limited to IMPBA twice......still no DD out to see us to discuss it. He would need to vote on it eventually. Stop to educate himself for the vote? Nope. Somehow the BOD is sold the notion that what the racers are doing on race day is inherently wrong and/or there is lots of hand wringing going on. I'm not experiencing that. Discussions yes. Concerns sure. Grand arguments? no. It doesn't happen.

Both organizations still have N on the books. NAMBA even has M. What the heck for? They haven't made honest showings even at nationals in a decade+. Heck, the IMPBA rule book still has instructions on how to tech a brushed 27 turn motor. Holy crap. Bill Clinton was in his first term the last time I saw one of those. "But Terry, there are 4 or 5 guys in the entire country that run N2. Shouldn't we keep it for them?" NO! Broom that clutter out and add what actually puts butts on the drivers stand. Nope. FE is like pushing a rope sometimes. Technology changes but FE clings. Surprised we don't have wind up boats still on the books.

The goal needs to be "racers". Without them there is no point. Limited equals racers. Period. It's been true since 2003. Even when the rules were terrible limited equated to more racers. The rule set Dave wrote and I proposed in 2009 was terrible. Hind sight. However, they translated to more racers. It's not even debateable. It doesn't matter how I or anyone else feels about those rules then or now. They put a$$es on stands. Limited is still bringing racers to the pond with the size limit. Why ignore that further?
 

RaceMechaniX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
2,936
Terry, can you post here exactly what you want to like to see for IMPBA P Lite/Limited rule set. Are you adopting the NAMBA rules 1:1 regarding the power system or any there any additional limits you would like to place? For example, capacity, KV range, "C" rating, cost, weight, size, other?

-Tyler
 

T.S.Davis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
565
We proposed it basically the same as NAMBA. No extra stuff. Been a couple seasons now. I'd have to dig it out.

At the time, the BOD was "suggesting we implement P Limited to 2 hull types only. Mono and Catamaran" Don't ask for the reasoning. None was given. It would be written in to "special stock" classes, and there would be no records allowed. No reasons given for either of those either.

I responded approximately like you would think I would. I'm pretty predictable in that regard. haha "Do we tell the hydro guys to pound sand?" Something to that effect. Paraphrasing. I did find my old email on it where I declined to accept the amended proposal. I said this "FE shouldn't have to beg the BOD to legitimize the classes they are already racing". I still feel that way.
 
Top