Summary of NAMBA FE rule Proposals for 2008

[Darin Jordan]

Hey Guys... this is aimed mostly at NAMBA members, but others may be interested as well... The following was posted on another forum and comprises a summary of the rule change proposals that have been submitted to NAMBA leadership for publication to the members in the upcoming PropWash. The proposals are being submitted by District 4, with the help of a few other districts around the country...

If you are a NAMBA member and have a vote... please consider these proposals carefully and vote accordingly... I believe they are going to publish an explanation of each in the same PropWash, but this stuff has been hased out on these forums for a year, so I think everyone already has a good idea of what is being proposed and why... Vote your conscience and be heard...

I don't have access to the actual proposal, but this is the summary that was posted on the NAMBA FE forum:

Prop 1: Do you vote to adopt these length limits. (N2 and O = 27", P = 34", Q = 40", S&T = 60")

 

Prop 2: Sprint races to 1 mile? (N1 would remain 5 laps on the 1/10th and 1/8th)

 

Prop 3: Correct in inconsistency in N2 Power Specs. (Change "7.5V Maximum" to "up to 7.5V nominal")

 

Prop 4: A, B, C: Can we run lipos in LSH, LSO and N1. (3 separate votes.)

 

<EDIT: DUMPED Prop 5 conerning 19T motors...>

 

[D. Newland]

Darin-Thanks for posting.

I have been racing under these proposed items for nearly a year now. It's been on my mind since the Sardine Race 7/06 when I went up against a 31" LiPo powered N-2 Offshore boat with my OM 21". Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight. Actually, it was quite fun and I placed just fine in those heats. But, it got me thinkin'.

I think most agree that FE will continue to be challenged by Technology and that some type of limit is needed to help keep the smaller classes affordable. Limiting the power more than what is on the books now may have accomplished the same thing as length limits, but I couldn't figure out a clean way (for me) accomplish it...at least not as clean as length limits. IIRC, nothing was ever formalized on the boards, either, regarding a viable alternative to this proposal.

Length limits (and the proposed 1 mi sprint heats, for that matter) put the emphasis on dialing in and driving your setup, rather than going for all-out raw speed. Length limits have already helped me maintain my current fleet of hulls for a longer period of time. There's little need now to replace a perfectly good hull just because the tech has changed and racers can remain competitive with their setups for a longer period of time, whether its cheap, medium or high end equipment they've invested in.

Lipo's in LSH/LSO/N-1...No brainer I think. Is anybody concerned here???

N-1 to 19T. I think that will revive quite a few racers, especially those with OM21's (me), Maus's and any other "older" N-2 hull that is currently collecting dust.

 

[D. Newland]

More background information.

Intlwaters Thread

 

[Darin Jordan]

An Update...

The proposal that was submitted to NAMBA for inclusion in an upcoming PropWash has been revised to now only contain the following proposals:

Prop 1: Do you vote to adopt these length limits. (N2 and O = 27", P = 34", Q = 40", S&T = 60")

 

Prop 2: Sprint races to 1 mile? (N1 would remain 5 laps on the 1/10th and 1/8th)

 

Prop 3: Do you vote to adopt P class Power Limits for LSH?

 

Prop 4: Do you vote to adopt P class Power Limits for LSO?

 

Prop 5: Do you vote to adopt N-2 class Power Limits for N-1?

To clarify, Prop 1 includes the wording changes for the N2 Power Limits to revise them from "7.5V Maximum" to "Up to 7.5V Nominal", as they should have been originally...

Prop 2 changes the current race lengths from a 5-lap format on the 1/10th and 1/8th courses to be 1-mile on any of the 3 Official NAMBA courses... so 10-laps on 1/10th, 8 on 1/8th, 6 on 1/6th...

Props 3, 4, and 5 simply revise the sections refering to Power Limits (batteries) in these classes to allow them to run "any chemistry" cells...

And please note... "Power Limits" are specifically called out in the "Power Specifications" for each class level... the Power Limits only refer to the batteries/cells allowed and any limits associated with those cells... they have nothing to do with the motor allownaces, etc... JUST batteries...

NO other revisions are being proposed... Current paralleling and mAh limits will be retained... No change is being proposed for N-1 Power Specifications (motors)...

 

[JfromJAGs]

Do these length limits apply for hydro and for SAWs too? Just hull length or complete boats? How are you going to measure that - lets say a rigger where the furthest points (sponsons and prop) and are not in one line? After allowing 10Ah/12Ah last year (which BTW is still impossible to judge!), this is even bigger BS. Actually the biggest BS I have seen in my life. It inverts the logics behind racing too. Instead of beeing fastest with limited power, the new goal is to stuff as much power into a given hull size.

Don't you realize that you messed up the rules last year? You left a system which was impossible to judge (actual mAh of the battries). But instead of fixing that 2008, you leave it and now you are going to have another rule which will create even more grey zones. That is, rules without clear description how to judge if a boat is legal or not.

NAMBA guys, wake up. Don't let these few guys mess up the FE rules even more.

Joerg Mrkwitschka

(who didn't continue his NAMBA membership because of this crap)

 

[Darin Jordan]

Do these length limits apply for hydro and for SAWs too?....

I'm just a messanger... this is NOT my proposal... I didn't write it, just read over the results... but my current understanding is that it applies to all boats... but I hear there is a group working on a set of SAW specific rules... but I have not details...

It inverts the logics behind racing too. Instead of beeing fastest with limited power, the new goal is to stuff as much power into a given hull size.

And... if you stuff too much... you are no longer competitive... Your boat won't be drivable... and you'll be wasting money... So WHERE is the incentive to do it in the first place...

This is as opposed to the current system where whoever has the biggest boat wins??? But then, equipement wars and battery wars favour your racing program, so it's easy to understand why you'd support this logic...

For the record... up until a few years ago... the NAMBA FE rules DID have length restrictions... but there was a proposal to remove them... Since then... as technology has evolved, the size of ALL of our equipment has GROWN... and with this system... to be competitive, you MUST have the biggest boats... the best cells... the most efficient motors... etc... It's an equipment war and truely He who has the biggest/best stuff wins...

If the hull size is restricted, however... to a length were you could reasonable power a hull with an $80.00 Chinese motor and unparalleled 30C Lipos... and can run that hull size to it's limit... you no longer MUST have a $300.00 Lehner motor and $600.00 worth of paralleled cells... That'll just be too much power.... and power that's wasted...

Without length restrictions, even with some kind of European system, like weight limits for cells.... It's an arms race... JUST like we have right now... NO different at all, but even more expensive...

You left a system which was impossible to judge (actual mAh of the battries).

NO, that's not accurate... let's be clear... based on a lot of mis-information given by those who did not favour a lipo introduction that instilled unwarranted fears, the NAMBA MEMBERSHIP voted this in... NOT me, or anyone else involved with putting that proposal together... EVERYONE had a NO vote they could have cast, and everyone who was in contact with someone who understood this technology was educated about the options and would have voted NO for those useless and untechable limits...

But instead of fixing that 2008... you leave it

I agree with this... it needs to be adjusted for sure... but apparently those submitting the proposal are gun shy about proposing too much (can't understand why??? ) and decided to focus on the most important stuff... Those rediculous paralleling limits and mah limits should be removed... because with length limits, they are not really necessary at all... Why shouldn't someone be able to run 2s3P of 2000mah cells if they like, if that pacakge fits in their hull better, etc...??? Silly...

and now you are going to have another rule which will create even more grey zones. That is, rules without clear description how to judge if a boat is legal or not.

I think that THIS is the kind of misinformation that gets people to vote the wrong way... You REALLY need to get your facts straight before posting stuff like this... How to measure a hull is CLEARLY spelled out in the current NAMBA rules... Section 28.A.4 - Hull Measurement Guidelines

I'll let you guys go look that up... but trust me, it's there... and it addresses this issue.... it's not rocket science...

NAMBA guys, wake up. Don't let these few guys mess up the FE rules even more.

Well... on this... you just insulted the entire IMPBA organization and it's FE membership, as well as a LARGE group of NAMBA members that support this proposal and this rule logic... There are always just a few guys (10-12 in this case) who assemble these proposals and get them into proper format to go out for a vote... but they would NEVER do it without a HUGE amount of support and feedback from the membership...

(who didn't continue his NAMBA membership because of this crap)

If you are not even a member, then you should really just stay out of it, as it doesn't concern you anyhow... Those of us who actually RACE under these rules need something in place that protects our investments and makes for better racing on the water... As opposed to the current race which takes place in the shop at home as people see who can come up with the biggest setup this month...

 

[K.R.Joye]

Well done Darin, you have a lot of patience with the guy.

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

Nicely done Darin. I'll leave it at that.

 

[lohring]

Joerg is the current NAMBA straight line record holder with a two way average of 140+ mph. This was on nickel metal hydride batteries. No one else has come close to this speed anywhere in the world. He has been at the forefront of electric boat development for some time and has an engineer's understanding of the situation. He seriously disagrees with several of the members of the Pacific Northwest electric community on the direction electric boating is taking in NAMBA. However, he still occasionally shares his test results on lithium polymer batteries. I noticed a sudden upsurge in people warming their lipos after he published the results of his tests on the practice.

Lohring Miller

 

[Darin Jordan]

He has been at the forefront of electric boat development for some time and has an engineer's understanding of the situation.

Just to clarify... he is at the "forefront of electric" STRAIGHT-LINE "boat development... Or at least he was...

And he's not the ONLY engineer in this discussion with an "understanding of the situation"...

His opinions are no more valid than any number of other NAMBA MEMBERS' opinions, which are also based on data, testing, and reasoned logic...

I find it a little troubling that our District Director, who has minimal experience with FE and FE competition, would be so quick to dismiss the experience and opinions of SO many local members, and nation-wide NAMBA/IMPBA members as well, based on the opinions of ONE person who doesn't, and I don't thing has EVER, raced an oval race here in competition... Who REALLY has the experience that counts when considering these issues??? Think about it...

 

[photohoward1]

Joerg is the current NAMBA straight line record holder with a two way average of 140+ mph. This was on nickel metal hydride batteries. No one else has come close to this speed anywhere in the world. He has been at the forefront of electric boat development for some time and has an engineer's understanding of the situation. He seriously disagrees with several of the members of the Pacific Northwest electric community on the direction electric boating is taking in NAMBA. However, he still occasionally shares his test results on lithium polymer batteries. I noticed a sudden upsurge in people warming their lipos after he published the results of his tests on the practice.
Lohring Miller

Yes a great accomplishment....but how does his reasoning cross-over for oval racing...A great many of the guys on these boards are "Record Holders" but you don't see them spouting there own agenda all the time...

Even with the rule changes Joerge's boats still comply to the rule set.....

The rules are in place for Fun, Safety and to give an even playing field that we can all judge ourselves against...Without rules it is a wild west free for all. N2 boats that are 60" and pulling 300 amps....(Not a fantasy. Some one with a big wallet and something to prove could do it now.)

I bet Joerge would be the first one to show up with a 30 series motor and a custom 3-5 turn winde for this.....(Prove me wrong!)

Well enough of this keyboard racing back to the shop to finishing packing my toys for Phoenix.....

HT

 

[T.S.Davis]

Not to make light of Joergs records. They are incredible. No way around it. BUT this latest proposal had input from 11 NAMBA record holders, the FE chairman, and multiple national class champions. Racers from coast to coast.

Nobody should assume that this latest set of proposals is/are the wishes of a small group of racers from the NW or from any other single district for that matter. That is simply not accurate.

For the record, I didn't get everything I wanted. If it were up to me it would have been more aggressive. We all knew that NAMBA (at least the FE part of it) resists change and would lose it's mind if we went too crazy.

 

[D. Newland]

...NAMBA guys, wake up. Don't let these few guys mess up the FE rules even more.
Joerg Mrkwitschka

(who didn't continue his NAMBA membership because of this crap)

Joerg,

Those NAMBA members that oppose length limits (which is a very limited number, by the way) had every opportunity to create, test and finalize a proposal that they feel would be good for FE.

It didn't happen. To the best of my knowledge, anyway. It's too bad, really, because I do respect those NAMBA racers that have voiced their opposition. If they just would have focused their energy on working on a solution rather than trying to shoot down what we have done, we'd all have 2 choices to vote on. Well, three choices. Length limits, power limits, or "No" to both.

Those that support length limits have been fine-tuning this thing for well over a year now. We created it. We tested it. We like it. Our research shows that a majority of FE NAMBA members like it, too. That's why the proposal exists.

 

[JfromJAGs]

Well, I should have cept my mouth shut, like I did the last 6 months. After that post, I'll continue to do so.

The whole discussion is not about me, me coming from Germany, me staying in NAMBA or not or me racing oval with you guys. I'm not that important. But it's about messing up the FE history and future with those high current, high $ rules.

Hull length limits make some sence in case you want to keep very short runtimes - which are the initial reason for the dilemma. Anyway, keeping those rather short runtimes, which would need C rates of 30-60, the only solution is to limit possible power output in a different way. Hull length limits are one approach, maybe not the best, but an approach.

It still somehow turns the FE world upside down, but I would think most of those who don't agree with the poposed hull length limits could live with length limits in case they would limit currents in a way that 1p LiPo's, cheaper motors and controllers could be used again.

That would happen if boat sizes would be limited to the "old" known sizes. A N2 boat would then be 21"-ish, P boats would be 27-29" and S boats would be 34-36". That would turn 2007 N2 boats into P again, 2007 P boats into S again. Boats would run an similar power, but double voltage and only half the current compared to 2007. Instead of 2s2p you would run 4s1p. Half the current would let you use cheaper controllers and cheaper motors. Those who like 34" boats can continue to do so, but the class would be called S again.

Think about it - unbiased. It may give FE in the US a better future.

 

[Darin Jordan]

Hull length limits make some sence in case you want to keep very short runtimes - which are the initial reason for the dilemma.

Just so people are clear... Proposal #2 is a Yes or No to extend the race distances from 1/2 mile or 5/8 miles to 1-mile on any "Official NAMBA FE Course"... This is NOT considered a "very short runtime"... we're looking at nearly doubling our race time...... The length limits and race length are designed to work together... So those that agree with what Joerg is saying, as apparently the group that put these proposals together does, would simply need to vote YES to Proposal #2, and for the length limits of Proposal #1...

It still somehow turns the FE world upside down, but I would think most of those who don't agree with the poposed hull length limits could live with length limits in case they would limit currents in a way that 1p LiPo's, cheaper motors and controllers could be used again.

One needs to ask themselves if the paralleling limits are really going to matter... We already have cells that are 5300, even 6000 mah... and we already have cells available that are truely 30C, with 40C cells right around the corner... With hull limits in place, there won't be any NEED to parallel in order to draw the amps needed to power these rather modest hull sizes to competitive speeds... We have 2S 5300 mah packs right now that can handle 160+amps continuous... that's nearing the edge of what a 27" hull is going to be able to handle... which is exactly the point...

That would happen if boat sizes would be limited to the "old" known sizes. A N2 boat would then be 21"-ish, P boats would be 27-29" and S boats would be 34-36".

I can't disagree that it would be "nice" to be able to continue to use our "old" sizes... but honestly, we were using 26"-ish N2 boat WAY before Lipos were ever introduced... Your "old" is a little too old... but it is these "old" hull sizes (the sizes we are currently using)... that these proposals are trying to protect...

The length limits that are proposed were based on just slightly below the TOP end of what was possible with NiMH cells 2-years ago... 26"-ish for N2, 30-33"-ish for P, etc... Racing is very good with these lengths... You can still power them with modest motor packages, and they better handle the racing conditions... Go any smaller, and racing suffers.... Go any bigger, and you force people to HAVE to buy top-end motor/esc/battery packages just to power the hulls... which is the same way things will be with no limits... regardless of parallelling allowances or other non-hull-related limits...

It also doesn't hurt that these hull sizes basically correspond with current Nitro hull sizes...

N2 =~ .18 boats

P =~ .21/3.5 boats

Q =~ .45/7.5 boats...

S/T =~ .67 and Open boats

 

[Jim Caldwell]

Darin, Your points exactly confirm my six years of racing with the datalogger. It tells you exactly what is going on and why. Where the limits are and what will happen to the 300 amp boat before the third heat. Actually we have already seen that happen several times.

Jorge, You are an asset to F/E boating with your lab testing and you are the current king of SAW's but some of your responses show that you are not familiar with our form of oval racing, water condition with 6 boats on the course at the same time and the 1 mile race distance. No one over here wants to go back to the cell and motor of the month, which is what we had with the OLD type rules. I value your input but the testing on the water by several dozen racers from all over the country have already proven this works very well.

 

[lohring]

I would like say that i very much respect the opinions of the electric racers in the Pacific Northwest, many of whom have more electric heat racing experience than not only me, but nearly any other electric group in the country. Their Electric Nationals was a great success and proved that the naysayers on lipo power were wrong. Lipos were safe and dominated the competition. Several of the people that are most vocal in opposing my stand have been exceptionally helpful to me in getting me started in electric racing. I have pointed out that the way to debate the electric proposals is to submit an article counter to mine for the NAMBA Propwash. I have sent several copies of my article to people who wanted to see it in advance. I was surprised to get replies in support of my position on length limits from some people.

My experience, like all the other NAMBA officials comes from dealing with all kinds of model boat power plants for a long time. As I have said many times. this same explosion in new technology has happened before. Length limits may be the way to deal with it this time. They have never been used before except in scale and scale like classes. I believe that the electric power plant (battery, speed controller, and motor) is the place to look for future rules. Worldwide there have been several approached to this power problem. Let's not automatically discount other's approaches because we didn't think of or try them.

Lohring Miller

 

[TRUCKPULL]

Lohring

I sent you an E-Mail

Could you send me a copy of your FE article that is going to be in the propwash.

Thank You

Larry Jaques

NAMBA # 615

 

[AlanN]

Many of us have tried to compose some regulation regarding electric motors but even the most knowledgable cannot create a rule system that allows for usage of more than one make or type of motor per class.

Those involved have set aside spec classes that allows the newbie and old school racer to copmpete on a level basis. Sv27 LSH LSO and even tunnel. That's alot of spec racing for the masses. Now the current props are written in response to our more "open type" classes. NOT to get confused with the actual OPEN classes in IMPBA.

If we were to write all the rules according to those with a nitro mentality (not an inusult...certain size motors/class) we would be limiting ourselves to one make of motor most likely.

If you have not raced a mile in FE or even tried a setup that allows for this you are voicing an opinion without all the knowledge.

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Guys,

The problem with trying to limit the technical side of things in FE is electronics and batteries. They are developing way faster than any rule set governing them will be able to keep up. This simple fact isn't going to change any time soon, just look at computers for a good example.

Good luck with the rule set.

Paul.