Sport hydro

[Grimracer]

From what I can see.. the air trap width has not changed..

That puts the Mutt II and the H+M out of the list.. Meaning this new proposal is not the cause of those two boats being "Illegal" acording to the information on the list of boats above.

Grim

 

[Darin Jordan]

From what I can see.. the air trap width has not changed..

That puts the Mutt II and the H+M out of the list.. Meaning this new proposal is not the cause of those two boats being "Illegal" acording to the information on the list of boats above.

Grim

Mike... I'll have to talk to Brian... he's the one who measured them... they're his boats that were checked...

 

[57fairlane500]

Darin, Mike's point is that the air trap rule has not changed. That rule made those boats "illegal" before this trial set of rules came along.

 

[raptor347]

#14 in SP20 and #15 in SP40. H&M traps are 5/32" and the Mutt II are 3/8". They were never legal.

 

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, Mike's point is that the air trap rule has not changed. That rule made those boats "illegal" before this trial set of rules came along.

I see... Interesting....

 

[RodneyPierce]

hmmmmm....... thats odd isnt it?

 

[tnrcboatracer]

The air trap is defined so that it does not become a ride surface. Someone could make a 1" wide ride pad, but if it started at the sponson transom, they could say it was an air trap. 3/8" wide is enough to be a ride surface.

Guess the rules were never enforced on those hulls...... Still doesn't make them legal for competition, though. And now knowing they are not legal makes it possible for those hulls to be protested at an event......just sayin......

 

[57fairlane500]

This is why I wont be coming to Hobart, too bad.

 

[SayMikey]

Most guys have repaired the air traps. Not really an issue

 

[RodneyPierce]

This is why I wont be coming to Hobart, too bad.

That makes NO sense.

Why would you NOT go to Hobart for the best race EVER (or so Im told)?

Just make sure you have a boat that conforms to the rules. Its really NOT HARD. And chances are if you dont have a boat that conforms to the rules, it more then likely wasnt LEGAL to either this "trial" rule or the "old" rule anyhow. Why push the limits on something just to have it deemed illegal?

And before everyone barks in here, there is a difference between pushing the limits and being new and innovative......

 

[Jerry Dunlap]

Although I don't race IMPBA Sport 20, the new drawings/specs are way more definitive than what is currently in the IMPBA Rulebook.

JD

 

[RodneyPierce]

Although I don't race IMPBA Sport 20, the new drawings/specs are way more definitive than what is currently in the IMPBA Rulebook.

JD

I do agree.

 

[P THOMAS]

Darin, the transom measurement is the widest point not the bottom like NAMBA FE rules.

The Stealth 21 is ok for transom width but just a bit too narrow at 50% of the afterplane, if it is measured at the bottom as it appears on the drawing. The deck is as wide as the sponosn keels at 50%.

I really tried to have them keep it simple, but it kept growing HA KISS

I really think all that was needed was the front sponson keel and transom overall width kept to a percent that everyone could live with.

How you got from the front to the back point would be up to the designer

NO riding surfaces behind the front sponsons

All that about belly pans and lines to 50% is not needed IMO

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I didn't see sponson width in the new rules, I'll have to check again

I'm with Phill, As long as the bottom is continuous (with belly pan that is a specified minimum height above the planing surface and terminating by X% of the afterplane if you like) between the sponsons at the sponson transom, flat (no additional ride pads), and Y% of tunnel width at the transom, they should leave the rest of the bottom alone. The pickle fork and wing specifications are fine. This would keep all current hulls legal (air trap width not withstanding) with the rule change. The intent of the belly pan definition to to heep it from becoming an additional planing surface.....

 

[57fairlane500]

I also don't race IMPBA as we are a NAMBA district. I am not pushing any rules, I have been running the Mutt2 boats since their inception (I actually ran the Mutt1's also) and it fits the NAMBA rules. I believe they fit the IMPBA rules when the boat first came out, but I cant say for sure.

After talking to Stu at the NAMBA nats last year I really would like to make it to Hobart, it sounds like a great time.

 

[Jerry Dunlap]

I also don't race IMPBA as we are a NAMBA district. I am not pushing any rules, I have been running the Mutt2 boats since their inception (I actually ran the Mutt1's also) and it fits the NAMBA rules. I believe they fit the IMPBA rules when the boat first came out, but I cant say for sure.

After talking to Stu at the NAMBA nats last year I really would like to make it to Hobart, it sounds like a great time.

It is a great race. I'm planning to attend again this year and bring my "Snake 20 Sport Hydro" if it's still in one piece after 4 or 5 more races here in District 8.

JD

 

[tnrcboatracer]

The air trap portion of the rules has been in place for a VERY long time. But don't worry, you won't get protested until after you are in the points lead, or have won a trophy in the class. Seen it happen........Not very sportsman like, but not everyone plays nice....Like I said a few posts earlier, few will protest a hull that isn't performing.....

I'd be interested to see the bottom of the MUTT2. I've seen what I recall was a MUTT1, and as I remember, it was legal. If the air trap is part of the antitrip chine, it would be legal, since it comes to a sharp edge at the water surface (thus no planing surface). The base of the air trap can be over 1/8" wide, only the water contact surface needs to be a maximum of 1/8" wide (as I recall). I'll try to post a sketch when I get home.

 

[SayMikey]

The air trap portion of the rules has been in place for a VERY long time. But don't worry, you won't get protested until after you are in the points lead, or have won a trophy in the class. Seen it happen........Not very sportsman like, but not everyone plays nice....Like I said a few posts earlier, few will protest a hull that isn't performing.....

I'd be interested to see the bottom of the MUTT2. I've seen what I recall was a MUTT1, and as I remember, it was legal. If the air trap is part of the antitrip chine, it would be legal, since it comes to a sharp edge at the water surface (thus no planing surface). The base of the air trap can be over 1/8" wide, only the water contact surface needs to be a maximum of 1/8" wide (as I recall). I'll try to post a sketch when I get home.

Not really a hard fix does not help or hinder boat handling. Mostly an aggravation of rule differences between IMPBA and Namba. Boats are hard to get at least on the left coast

 

[P THOMAS]

I didn't see sponson width in the new rules, I'll have to check again

I'm with Phill, As long as the bottom is continuous (with belly pan that is a specified minimum height above the planing surface and terminating by X% of the afterplane if you like) between the sponsons at the sponson transom, flat (no additional ride pads), and Y% of tunnel width at the transom, they should leave the rest of the bottom alone. The pickle fork and wing specifications are fine. This would keep all current hulls legal (air trap width not withstanding) with the rule change. The intent of the belly pan definition to to heep it from becoming an additional planing surface.....

I was refering to the width of the front sponson keels(B ) which can be whatever and the transom width (A) set at 80% of B

 

[raptor347]

The base of the air trap can be over 1/8" wide, only the water contact surface needs to be a maximum of 1/8" wide (as I recall).

Jon,

Not trying to pick a fight here. That may be the intent, but it's not worded that way.

From the Roostertail:

"Air traps 1/8th" wide are allowed and must start at the back of the front sponson and at termination be no

deeper than 1/4". Non continuous air traps will be considered a planning surface."

It doesn't say anywhere that they may be wider at the base. As it's written, you could certainly protest a wedge cross section air trap, then it's up to the CD's interpretation of the rule.

Of course if it's just the lowest contact point that counts, all we have to do to fix the Mutt II is run an 1/8" wide piece of 1/64 ply down the length of the air trap.