Sport hydro

[SayMikey]

I think this many changes to a class or classes should have been brought out mid year and kicked around by the whole body for a few months instead of a quick mid stream implementation. Dont get me wrong im all for these guidelines but at a much more controlled pace.

 

[lohring]

The only thing I don't like in the Trial Rules for this year is they allowed transom mount struts in 20 but not in 40.

That make very hard to keep water out of the hull in Electrics.

So I guess I will stop painting my new sport 40.

See these posts for the solution. http://www.intlwaters.com/index.php?showtopic=50710

Lohring Miller

 

[SeanKewley]

I guess I better get my tape measure out and check my SS45. Not sure I understand the cowl section for the sport 40. "Model Engine must be fully cowled except for air and water inlets and exits. (this excludes the exhaust system) " Does the wording make an exposed pipe legal or illegal?

 

[P THOMAS]

I guess I better get my tape measure out and check my SS45. Not sure I understand the cowl section for the sport 40. "Model Engine must be fully cowled except for air and water inlets and exits. (this excludes the exhaust system) " Does the wording make an exposed pipe legal or illegal?

Exclude means it does not apply. exhaust system is the tuned pipe.

 

[Mike Betke]

http://impba.net/att...ts/152_M12Z.pdf

SO who thinks this will pass the vote??

What if somenoe has a boat that does'nt meet one of these new rule in the trial peroid? does he have to park it till a vote?

I thinks it is a good idea to try to clarify the sport rules, but this may have too many numbers for many to understand. Not really going to help build up the sport classes.

What do all of you sport boaters think? (good or bad) cause it will come up for a vote.

Good questions Phil, I would have thought that the people in impba would have asked the same things before throwing this at everyone. It obviously was not through very well. My boat was deemed legal by impba 12 years ago and I just finished a new one and was going to head to the pond this weekend with it and now it is illegal??? Who in their right mind would post this out to everyone 1 month before the racing season is to start? Why was the membership not notified of this well in advance before the season starts so that they could make changes to their hulls. Oh yea, that would mean someone would have to put some thought to something and actually come up with an implementation plan. Yes I am pissed. I received mails yesterday and have heard that other people have made changes to molds and made new boats that will now be illegal. They are not very happy as well.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mind the rules, but they need to be time phased into everything. Like I said, for 12 years my hull has been legal. I have not been heavily involved in the hobby for a few years, so have not built a new one in a while. I built and sold 6 of these boats thru the years and some of them have been surfacing and racing again. Nobody had said anything about them being illegal, so I build a new one that is very similar to the original. Now the day before I am going to the pond, I get this. The timing is terrible. I do not have time to build a new boat for this racing season, so if I show up at a race will I be allowed to run? My son and I were planning on hitting a lot of races this year so I would like to know. I will build a new boat next year if the consensus is that everyone wants this, but they have to give people time to react to the change.

I agree that there are too many specs as well that need better definition. The way I look at the keelson drawing on the lower right hand corner of the document, I believe the Blazer hulls would be illegal. The way that the transom rule is spelled out, I think your round nose sport 40 is illegal as the bottom at the transom can only be 80% of the tunnel. Any duplication of a Lauterbach hull would be illegal. An MTO round nose is now illegal (I just measured my scale so I am assuming that the sport 40 has the same percentage).

Also, what is the difference of a sport 20, 40 and gas hull? If IMPBA decides that this is what a sport hydro is supposed to look like, then it should apply to all sport boats regardless of the power plant. I do not understand the logic that the modified rigger/sport hull works for the gas guys but does not work for the nitro guys. A hull specificication is the same regardless of the size of the motor put in the hull.

 

[P THOMAS]

Well that is why it is a trial year so the proposal can be viewed and deemed workable or not.

I too think it should have been published and discussed nationally, and then sent to a director.

They do need all input like this so a informed vote can be done.

 

[SeanKewley]

I measured my PT SS45. It fits within the supplied pictorial dimensions.

My Blazer Marine Whip 40 also fits the dimensions with one possible issue that needs clarification. (See pic)

The sponson keelson line appears to narrow before reaching the 50% after plane mark (Dotted line). This is assuming that I measured the after plane correctly. I measured from the back of the sponson ride pads to the transom.

If anyone else is interested… The dimensions from my SS45 and Whiplash Sport 40 are attached also.



PT SS45 Measurements.pdf

Whiplash Sport 40 Measurements.pdf

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I have one of the Betke hulls that I have been playing with for a few years as well. I am ready to campaign it again this year. Hulls that were legal and raced before this rule change should be grandfathered in as legal. That won't help Mike's new build, but to make a previously recognized legal hull illegal at the start of the season is not right. Previously campaigned hulls should be grandfathered in since they were legal at the times they were previously run in competition. Requiring a boater to scrap a hull that was previously raced when it complied with the rules is not right. This is a hobby, not professional racing. I'm not in a position to replace my hull at the start of this season just becasue someone thought they could better define some rules and unilaterally decided to announce and apply the new rules at the start of the race season.

Isn't there something in the bylaws about a comment period on rules change proposals? SInce this is a trial rule, will I be able to race my 10 year old hull that was legally raced all of its life up until this trial rule was written?

What about the oval record held by the Betke hull; is it now void?

Regarding the afterplane length, doesn't the afterplane start at the sponson transom, not the end of thesponson ride pad?

Also, as for the transom width, the pic shows the max with of the transom, not the width at the ride surface. The Betke is legal on this point as the transom is 9.063" wide at tthe top, vs the sponson width of 11.25" (80% of 11.25=9.0)

The Whiplash in the pic is not legal as I understand the illustrations and see in the photo.

My vote will be NO

 

[moe1117]

I have a hard time understanding this new trial rule, First off who is this helping not the sport.?? Second, there are many of us that build boats all winter long and are just begining to test. New rules should be brought up in the fall / end of racing season for those planning new builds over the break. Third I have a Betke hull that is over ten years old and i have racing it for the last two seasons, I have alot of time and money in to this boat and I am planning on running this year as well. Fourth, where in the current rule book dose it state dimenions for sport 20 / 40 (if anyone would point me in the right direction please and thankyou) I know of two very dedicated-long term -many records between them that built new boats for this year. The time and money as most of you know that goes into a new project is alot. After talking to the president and my district director I feel very storng that this should be tabled untill 2013 so that everyone can adjust to the changes be it for a trail period or voted on and passed or rejected. In it's current state and the very poorly time vote by the board members of all districts I would like to see this trial rule change to start in 2013, the record of the vote. and changes to how things are voted on. place new ideals out to the members feel it out, then make an educated motion and have time factor of compliance built in. Place some type of notice (big and bold) addressing boats that have been running for years that would now be considered illegal. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Mark Owens

Distrirt 2

 

[brandonclan]

Mark, Nitro special cllases, page h-7 is rules...then page h-9 pics dated march 2008. here's the link:

http://www.impba.net...02008%20OLD.pdf

My opinion.interpretation, of these new sport rules.

The picture clearly shows the transom width being measured at it's widest point (TOP), not the running surface. So the 80% deal would not apply to most hulls.

The broken keelson line rule, is also clearly illustrated. like it or not....

The sponson keelson line to be 50% of aftplane seems to be measured from the rear of the sponson itself, it is NOT clearly illistrated. Needs to be spelled out.

Otherwise, the pics and rules seem to be in line.

With that being said.....

A rule proposal that potentially deems some current hulls to be illegal, should be discussed first (if possible) by the masses.

If a trial rule is to be implemented for such changes, time needs to be allowed for people to vote on these new rules and if passed, to adhere to the new rules.

I think any class called "sport hydro" boats should have to adhere to the same rules, no matter how it's powered.

What we have to ask ourselves is this..... Will this be good for the class? Will it help the class grow? Will it make the class be more uniform?

This rule proposal is immediatly enforced?

As it is currently set up, if someone has a hull that does not conform to the TRIAL RULES, can they race it this year? In the future?

This is why this needs to be discussed long before a trial rule is imposed.

If a new rule is to be implemented that affects the design of the boats, it should be done very slowly and clearly.

I agree with Mark....this needs to be tabled, discussed, tweaked, etc.

If things are clearly spelled out and voted in, everyone will deal with it. Not the case here.

 

[Mike Betke]

I have one of the Betke hulls that I have been playing with for a few years as well. I am ready to campaign it again this year. Hulls that were legal and raced before this rule change should be grandfathered in as legal. That won't help Mike's new build, but to make a previously recognized legal hull illegal at the start of the season is not right. Previously campaigned hulls should be grandfathered in since they were legal at the times they were previously run in competition. Requiring a boater to scrap a hull that was previously raced when it complied with the rules is not right. This is a hobby, not professional racing. I'm not in a position to replace my hull at the start of this season just becasue someone thought they could better define some rules and unilaterally decided to announce and apply the new rules at the start of the race season.

Isn't there something in the bylaws about a comment period on rules change proposals? SInce this is a trial rule, will I be able to race my 10 year old hull that was legally raced all of its life up until this trial rule was written?

What about the oval record held by the Betke hull; is it now void?

Regarding the afterplane length, doesn't the afterplane start at the sponson transom, not the end of thesponson ride pad?

Also, as for the transom width, the pic shows the max with of the transom, not the width at the ride surface. The Betke is legal on this point as the transom is 9.063" wide at tthe top, vs the sponson width of 11.25" (80% of 11.25=9.0)

The Whiplash in the pic is not legal as I understand the illustrations and see in the photo.

My vote will be NO

Jon,

As far as the transom width is concerned, I do not understand how to interpret the language of the rule. It says (full back plane of hull), which I thought that the word plane would mean the bottom riding surface. If it is the overall width at the widest point, then why does it not say that? If it is overall width is the rule then my boat is fine to that, but it does not make the 50% rule. If the rule is as I interpret it as the bottom riding plane, then my boat, Peterson's new boat, Phil's round nose sport 40 or any other round nose is not legal.

The other part that I do not understand is the picture that says "broken keelson line to aft plane not allowed". If you look at that picture and the bottom of the Blazer boat that is pictured that would be another violation of the Blazer hull as the keelson line is broken. I personally do not have an issue with the Blazer hull, I am just pointing out the flaws in this rule.

I talked to my district director yesterday and he said they measured ALL of the current hulls that were out there prior to imposing the rule, including the Blazer, so that the current production boats would not be effected. I think we need to get the board some glasses. I looked at it for less than 5 hours and found issues with 5 hulls, so I do not know what they were looking at.

I have been told by him that past designs will be grandfathered in so that my boats wil be legal this year. This does not fix the problem. They need to take this rule back for 2012, send it out to the membership and get feedback, then put a proposal together that makes sense and is very clear. The problem with this rule is that it effects hulls, which take the longest time to make adjustments too. This is not a noise rule that just requires clamping on a silencer to your pipe. As an impba sport 40 record holder and boat designer, I would have thought that a courtesy e-mail to myself would have happened prior to this rule going into effect and maybe some input asked for. More thought should have been put into this.

 

[RodneyPierce]

I have one of the Betke hulls that I have been playing with for a few years as well. I am ready to campaign it again this year. Hulls that were legal and raced before this rule change should be grandfathered in as legal. That won't help Mike's new build, but to make a previously recognized legal hull illegal at the start of the season is not right. Previously campaigned hulls should be grandfathered in since they were legal at the times they were previously run in competition. Requiring a boater to scrap a hull that was previously raced when it complied with the rules is not right. This is a hobby, not professional racing. I'm not in a position to replace my hull at the start of this season just becasue someone thought they could better define some rules and unilaterally decided to announce and apply the new rules at the start of the race season.

Isn't there something in the bylaws about a comment period on rules change proposals? SInce this is a trial rule, will I be able to race my 10 year old hull that was legally raced all of its life up until this trial rule was written?

What about the oval record held by the Betke hull; is it now void?

Regarding the afterplane length, doesn't the afterplane start at the sponson transom, not the end of thesponson ride pad?

Also, as for the transom width, the pic shows the max with of the transom, not the width at the ride surface. The Betke is legal on this point as the transom is 9.063" wide at tthe top, vs the sponson width of 11.25" (80% of 11.25=9.0)

The Whiplash in the pic is not legal as I understand the illustrations and see in the photo.

My vote will be NO

Jon,

As far as the transom width is concerned, I do not understand how to interpret the language of the rule. It says (full back plane of hull), which I thought that the word plane would mean the bottom riding surface. If it is the overall width at the widest point, then why does it not say that? If it is overall width is the rule then my boat is fine to that, but it does not make the 50% rule. If the rule is as I interpret it as the bottom riding plane, then my boat, Peterson's new boat, Phil's round nose sport 40 or any other round nose is not legal.

The other part that I do not understand is the picture that says "broken keelson line to aft plane not allowed". If you look at that picture and the bottom of the Blazer boat that is pictured that would be another violation of the Blazer hull as the keelson line is broken. I personally do not have an issue with the Blazer hull, I am just pointing out the flaws in this rule.

I talked to my district director yesterday and he said they measured ALL of the current hulls that were out there prior to imposing the rule, including the Blazer, so that the current production boats would not be effected. I think we need to get the board some glasses. I looked at it for less than 5 hours and found issues with 5 hulls, so I do not know what they were looking at.

I have been told by him that past designs will be grandfathered in so that my boats wil be legal this year. This does not fix the problem. They need to take this rule back for 2012, send it out to the membership and get feedback, then put a proposal together that makes sense and is very clear. The problem with this rule is that it effects hulls, which take the longest time to make adjustments too. This is not a noise rule that just requires clamping on a silencer to your pipe. As an impba sport 40 record holder and boat designer, I would have thought that a courtesy e-mail to myself would have happened prior to this rule going into effect and maybe some input asked for. More thought should have been put into this.

But the current rule set is so much clearer?? There is more gray area in the current rule then in this new proposal......in my opinion.

So to people that are complaining about the clarity of the test rules, I think you should have been complaining for the last 15 years about the current rule set.......just saying.

Either way. I dont see how its a bad thing for the hobby/sport either way.

 

[Grimracer]

I have ZERO complants.. this is going to make it SO MUCH easer to design a boat for the class... without grey interpatation..

My Vote will be YES!

Grimracer

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Mike is right about the round nose hulls. I don't know of a single one that has a straight keelson for 50% of the afterplane. All of them appear to taper to the transom shortly after the sponson transom.

Does this keelson rule mean that the keelsons need to be parallel down their entire length? What about toe in/out at the nose?

I can think of ways to make the keelson straight, and have the same cutback on the bottom via ride pad reliefs. I've been toying with some ideas myself, and may just pull together a hull in my spare time now that "modified outrigger" has been eliminated from the wording. Mike, give me a call to discuss an idea I have 423-779-7760.

I interpret the reat plane to mean the entire transom, and the transom must already be a flat plane per a separate item in the specs. The picture illustrates that. The wording here should be cleared up.

Rodney, my complaint is not the content of the new rules, but the way they were rolled out; and what they do to current boats that were made illegal with a few keystrokes. Eliminating all of the roundnose hulls and the Whiplash is a large number of boats.MIke has stated that he had 6 hulls produced under the original rules that have been legal for atleast 10 years, all 6 of those hulls should be allowed to continune in competition by their current owner for as long as they want to run them. The same thing happened with the twin .21 sport 40 that was deemed illegal by the change to 'single engine' back in 1999~2000. The one hull that was in existence before the rule change should have be allowed to compete until the owner decided to retire it. Once a hull changes hands, it is no longer allowed in competiton,as the new owner can see that the hull is illegal. This is easily accomodated by the current owners registering their grandfathered hulls with the IMPBA rules committe when the new rule is adopted.The current ownersw would be the only ones allowed to campaign the grandfathered hull. The commercial builders also need to be given an opportunity to ensure their product is compliant. Similarly, all hulls produced before the adoption of the change should be grandfathered as well. The manufacturer can advise the IMPBA Rules Committe of their last pre change hull, or the owner can register it. I know this is overhead for the IMPBA, but they are the ones who changed the rules, so they need to keep up with the hulls that they made obsolete. Perhaps an end point for the grandfatehred hulls needs to be applied, maybe 10 years is a good point.

 

[Mike Betke]

I have ZERO complants.. this is going to make it SO MUCH easer to design a boat for the class... without grey interpatation..

My Vote will be YES!

Grimracer

I am sure you have no complaints, since I have heard that you had input into writing this rule. If it is so much easier, how about answering the questions that I posted above?

I can see how this is going to be, the guys that already have boats that meet the specs (Phil Thomas, AC) will think that it is just fine. The few of us that thought outside the box and took a lot of time to build something from scratch to the existing rules of 2011 will just have to deal with it.

What about the timing of this? I am glad I did not enter the nats this year to find out 1 month before hand that my boat is illegal. Like I said in my first post, I have no problem tightening up the rules, but there needs to be a well defined plan to implement them. Not just as I have been told, " thats the new rule, deal with it."

 

[tnrcboatracer]

One other thing; rule #8 states that the enginte must be fully cowled. What about the Bud that has an exposed engine. In the past the scales put a dummy engine cover over the nitro motor. The sport 40's could do the same, but does that qualify as fully enclosed under a cowl?

These new rules seem to be taylored to the more modern pickle fork style SP40 hulls. Do we now need a separate set of rules for the round nose, as well? The new rules have made all of the round nose SP40 hulls illegal; iS this the intent of the IMPBA? Is SP40 to be moidern pickle forks only?

When SP40 was made a class, the intent was to have a scale appearing hull, but without the cost of a full blown 1/8 scale. It was very popular and eventually became a US1 class. The same intent goes for SP20. The Sport style hulls could always run in the standard hydro classes (and still do), but they are notably slower than a rigger, so a class where they could compete against each other was created. It is also fun to see a bunch of scale appearing boats out on the water at one time, just like the 1/8 scale. I especially like seeing the old roundnose hulls competing against the modern turbine hulls.

My only complaint in this is the way it makes a bunch of current hulls illegal. If the legacy issue can be resolved, then I have no concerns. The folks making the rules need to take the current hulls in ciculation into account when making new rules. And they need to let the membership know about it in advance for some comment period before adopting them, even for a trial period. To me the trial period means that the rules do not apply for the current year, so I can run my boat as I please. I will be sure to ask the CD of a race if my boat will be allowed to compete before I enter, and get that confirmation in writing. If anyone at the race protests, I sure hope the CD stands by their commitment to me. I may be only one voice, but my vote does count. I have been a silent member of IMPBA for a long time, and tend to only speak out when I see and egregious error....which I see here. Once again, the rules committee needs to address the issue of legacy hulls before adopting the new rules.

Jon

 

[Grimracer]

Mike,

Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.. no matter.. either way lets allow the body to vote and decide whats wanted... and.. I will get me vote too.

As for the timing.. Im not sure how that works.. I know there are suggested deadlines for stuff like this but really dont know the details. That too might be in the book.

If the vote goes no.. and you still think you might want to start racing Sport 40, again.. and dont like the direction of what we have or had..

Write up a proposal.

Not that it matters all that much.. I for one dont feel sport 20 or 40 should be exploited in the gray areas. .. but.. thats just me.

Grim

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Grim, The IMPBA still needs to address the legacy hulls and records anytime there is a rule change that makes previously previously accepted hulls illegal. Are all records that were set with hulls that are now illegal void? If someone in the IMPBA put forward a rule change that made all the Top Speed tunnels illegal right at the start of the season, would that be good for the hobby or Aquacraft's business? I know that this is an extreme example, but that is what in effect has happened with the SP40 rule change. This rule change makes ALL Round Nose and Whiplash SP40 hulls illegal for competition. Did the authors of the new rules consider the effect on current competitor's hulls? I think not. Until the the status of legacy hulls is addressed, this rule change should be tabled. There is something seriously wrong when rules can be applied to the membership without comment or input.

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Please review the IMPBA constitution; were these procedures followed> DOes this proposal have the support of the executive board?

Per article VIII of the IMPBA constitution

SECTION 1 The Constitution, By Laws, Procedures, and General Rules of Competition shall be amended in the following manner:

A. Proposed amendments must be submitted to a District Director in writing and signed by ten (10) members of the Association. Said amendment must be accompanied by fifteen typewritten, legible copies and a $5.00 filing fee. A District Director or the President may also submit proposed amendments with no filing fee.

B. All rule proposals regarding the Constitution, By Laws, Procedures, General Rules of Competition, Contest & Racing Rules and those pertaining to classes and courses, (except those that deal with safety of financial solvency of the organization), will be reviewed during any meeting of the Executive Board.

C. Any rules proposal that has been approved by the Board of Directors and is based on the decision of the technical advisory chairman shall remain in effect for (2) full years from the date of manufacturers implementation. Manufacturers implementation shall be defined as follows - The manufacturer of a hull, hardware component , engine or pipe will present to the technical chair a prototype, or drawing or technical paper, along with an implementation/launch plan based on his manufacturing capability. If the proposal is approved by the technical chair and confirmed by the Executive Board this ruling will not be eligible for change until 24 months after the implementation date that was submitted by the manufacturer with the prototype.) Meetings of the Executive board will occur as described under Constitution, Article VII Meetings. All rule proposals will be submitted to the IMPBA office 30 days prior to these events. The rule proposal will be distributed to the Executive Board for discussion at the next Board meeting. All rule proposals under the following sections supported by the Executive Board will automatically undergo a trial period for one year (except as noted above in section 1.c).

B – 5 Constitution Meetings of the Executive board will occur as described under Constitution, Article VII Meetings. All rule proposals will be submitted to the IMPBA office 30 days prior to these events or March 1st, or July 1st, whichever is longer. The rule proposal will be distributed to the Executive Board for discussion at the next Board meeting. All rule proposals under the following sections supported by the Executive Board will automatically undergo a trial period for one year.

Rule proposals under the following sections, which are not supported by the Executive Board, will be for review. Send a ballot on rule changes to all members as well as to clubs. If supported by the membership, it will be designated for a trial period at the next Executive Board meeting. The sections affected are IMPBA Racing Rules, Classes and Courses, Laps, General Racing procedures, Racing Rules, Pit Time, Clock Time, Start, Buoy infractions, and IMPBA Approved Courses. All other rule proposals may be subject to a trial period to be determined by the Executive Board at their semiannual meeting. After discussing the pros and cons of the rule proposals, the Executive Board may elect to submit amendments to and along with the original proposal. After the Executive Board meetings, all rule proposals dealing with the Constitution, Rules of Competition and Racing Rules, Classes, and Courses will be distributed to IMPBA membership with a ballot that will require a head count for and against the proposal. It shall be returned to the respective District Director within the time stipulated on the ballot for a vote. The final decision on the proposed change and Executive Board’s vote will be effective with the next quarterly report.

 

[Mike Betke]

Mike,

Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.. no matter.. either way lets allow the body to vote and decide whats wanted... and.. I will get me vote too.

As for the timing.. Im not sure how that works.. I know there are suggested deadlines for stuff like this but really dont know the details. That too might be in the book.

If the vote goes no.. and you still think you might want to start racing Sport 40, again.. and dont like the direction of what we have or had..

Write up a proposal.

Not that it matters all that much.. I for one dont feel sport 20 or 40 should be exploited in the gray areas. .. but.. thats just me.

Grim

Thanks for not answering my 2 questions that I listed since as you said, the rules are SO MUCH easier to design a boat around with no grey area.

I'll take the maybe comment as admission of participation. I don't know why you would not just say it.