The FE Sport Scale Rule Change Proposal

[Kevin Whitehead]

Here a great idea.. If you don't like what was changed help fix it and stop bitching about how screwed up it is.. If you don't have the time well then you don't have a pot to #$%@ in and shouldn't be saying jack about it.

90985[/snapback]

​

I am going say whatever I want.

Don't read it if it is creating some kind of problem for you.

KW

 

[drobie]

No one is going to turn away anyone for not having a sponsor's name or race number painted on each side of their hull.  We are not that stupid. So, the question is: Why write in a rule that we know we are not going to enforce?KW

90986[/snapback]

​

Maybe the focus should be on enforcing the rules, not eliminating them.

And BTW, I was forced to put a number on a new boat at our race last year.

In addition, I don't see anything wrong with creating an "ideal" by making a rule and then under special circumstancing giving someone a break.

BTW, I agree the word "attractive" has to go along with a few other things like numbers "on the side of hull".

And guys, can we all (me included) try to be civil and respectful. Kevin has some valid points at least worth considering. We could cut bandwidth and word count in half by sticking to the issues.

 

[T.S.Davis]

This whole prospect of a new sport SCALE hydro porposal started shortly after the Spirit of the Eagle controversy.

Less complicated was never on the agenda. The intent was to tighten up the rules. They were written originally in such a way as to be as all inclusive as possible. Races would have 4 sport hydros show and 1 of them would not be right if the rules were tight. So they wrote tohe rules to encourage participation.

FE has evolved since then.

Kevin, at this point the content of the proposal is irrelavent. Blame NAMBA, blame the group that put together. Doesn't really matter now.

You know a ton about hydro. Model and full scale. Tell us what you would like to see.

I would expect you to speak your mind. Always. If you bit your tongue I would assume you'd been hit by a car or something. Bear with us though we're all a little sensative. Between the phone calls, emails, pm's and overall general ass chewing from every malcontent on the planet has made us that way.

These same guys that have been so disgruntled lifted not a finger for the past how many years? We're a little pissed at the moment. We'll get over it.

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Kevin,

There are way too many opportunities to have your highly-detailed scale hull changed so that it looks like you ran it through a wood chipper. Right Paul?

Umm, Errr :blink: It didn't quite look like it ran through a wood chipper, lol. And you did pay me back as I recall. :lol:

I reall do think we should stick with Sport Hydro, there is no scale to those classes. It should include that the boats be "full bodied" and not some modified rigger. As far as the length debate goes I would suggest;

O-Sport, 20" minimum length.

P-Sport, 20" minimum length.

Q-Sport, 27" minimum length. (this keeps with the Sport 20 nitro rules)

S-Sport, 35" minimum length.

1/8th Scale, it is just that.

Paul.

 

[drobie]

O-Sport, 20" minimum length.P-Sport, 20" minimum length.

Q-Sport, 27" minimum length.  (this keeps with the Sport 20 nitro rules)

S-Sport, 35" minimum length. 

1/8th Scale, it is just that.

91092[/snapback]

​

Is that P-Sport minimum a typo? Always been 24.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Umm, Errr :blink:   It didn't quite look like it ran through a wood chipper, lol.  And you did pay me back as I recall. :lol:
Paul.

91092[/snapback]

​

OK, it was a 1/12th scale woodchipper. It least we can laugh about some clashes.

A problem with any effort to increase the amount of scale detail required in these classes is that some people cannot laugh about unavoidable damage now. How are they going to react when much more time is spent detailing their boat?

Lowering those length requirements would get most of the benefits that I was suggesting. Why sit and bicker over 1/4 inch? Only giving 1/4" fudge factor now, will likely result in another similar borderline measurement fiasco, in the near future.

Only one question: Why 20" minimum in O Sport? Why not 15"? Why a minimum at all?

Just curious, as I haven't heard any reason at all, up to now.

KW

 

[SteveReesor]

What is the intent to have length requirements at all? Anyone who has run these things knows that a 24" hull in P Sport is a gamble at best (better be flat water). Shorter than 24" even in O is a gamble. A 28" hull in Q-S is also a challenge. Similarly, nobody is going to run a 28" hull in O Sport. The same arguement can apply to LSH. Much shorter than 24" and you won't fit the motor and cells into it and I venture to say it would not be competitive. Longer than 24" and the hull may be just too big for the power. The power and race duration practically dictate the hull configuration. If you consider eliminating the length requirements people won't be hung up on the Viper. The canard rule (25%) stays and the hulls should be modified to conform to the existing rules which apply to any sport hydro.

Why not just drop hull length restrictions completely. It would certainly eliminate any measurement responsibility by a consumer or a race CD.

As far as scale goes, we have a scale class...1/8th. You wanna pour time into detailing, this is the class. Requirements for drivers, cockpits, graphics on any other class is and should be up to the individual. The only graphic requirement should be the Namba number. I do not see the point of making it a rule. Let creativity reign with respect to finish.

Drop the reference to must resemble Unilimited or Limited sport hydroplanes. This would allow scratch built sport hydro's like the Raptor, or to Brian Blazers Whiplash type sport hydro's to run in their appropriate class based upon hull design. This also allows future design creativity to manufacturers and scratch builders alike. As long as the hull meets the rules by definition for a sport hydro, then let them race. The rules should allow people choice and creative freedom.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve Reesor

Namba #300

 

[drobie]

As far as scale goes, we have a scale class...1/8th. You wanna pour time into detailing, this is the class. Requirements for drivers, cockpits, graphics on any other class is and should be up to the individual. The only graphic requirement should be the Namba number. I do not see the point of making it a rule. Let creativity reign with respect to finish.
Drop the reference to must resemble Unilimited or Limited sport hydroplanes. Steve Reesor

Namba #300

91099[/snapback]

​

Steve,

The scale thing has been dropped from the proposal draft.

And I don't think I'm alone in always having assumed that Sport Hydros were supposed to resemble or simulate the real thing.

Your measurement comments are compelling.

 

[forresterace]

I am in complete agreement with Steve Reesor regarding length (or lack of) requirements in Sport Hydro (I have NEVER used the word "scale" here). They are completely unnecessary. I have always been a major fan of the MINIMUM number of rules necessary.

As far as the boats resembling real racing hydros is concerned, the sport hydro class has always had this requirement. It is completely futile to try to redefine this class when Nitro Sport Hydro has been around since Hector was a pup and their definition regarding appearance is easily understood by all and is rarely a problem This applies to both NAMBA and IMPBA. We do not have to reinvent the wheel.

What part of "full-bodied hydro" does anybody not understand. The rules also clearly state no riggers, modified riggers, tunnels and canard hydros and they always have.

You absolutely cannot state dimensional requirements when you are dealing with a range of hull sizes roughly from 20" to 36" long.

Both sanctioning bodies are introducing Sport 20 classes (nitro) and have not seen fit to have a major change in the class rule wording.

 

[drobie]

I just filed the amended the general Sport Hydro rules in my NAMBA rulebook. Section B, page 59. It's in the mailing all NAMBA members are receiving right now.

All of their classes have specified lengths and the description is nearly identical to this draft.

Someone made a case about keeping FE rules similar to nitro. It would make it psychologically easier for those who breath fumes to make the switch when all gas models are outlawed someday. LOL

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I just filed the amended the general Sport Hydro rules in my NAMBA rulebook.  Section B, page 59.  It's in the mailing all NAMBA members are receiving right now.
All of their classes have specified lengths and the description is nearly identical to this draft.

Someone made a case about keeping FE rules similar to nitro.  It would make it psychologically easier for those who breath fumes to make the switch when all gas models are outlawed someday.  LOL

91193[/snapback]

​

This is a pretty weak case for having minimum length requirement, at all.

Hasn't anyone offered a stronger reason than that?

KW

 

[drobie]

Hasn't anyone offered a stronger reason than that?

There will always be two camps. Those who want things clearly defined and those who don't.

BTW, I could go either way.

 

[brooks93]

BTW, I could go either way.

Doug whats your personal life got to do with sport hydro's..

oops off topic.. sorry

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Hasn't anyone offered a stronger reason than that?

There will always be two camps. Those who want things clearly defined and those who don't.

BTW, I could go either way.

91202[/snapback]

​

The discussions that have gone on about adding a -1/4" fudge factor or large numbers of racers having to build up the front ends of their boats by 1/8" to meet some minimum length requirement (that no one seems capable of justifying) , make the FE branch the laughing stock of the R/C boating hobby.

I'll bet there is more than one nitro or gas burner biting his tongue after reading these threads.

No BS at all, if I had read internet postings 5 or 6 years ago, that were like those that have been posted in the last 9 months (since Andy started all of the strict length requirement hoopla at the Sardine), I would be running nitro or gas today. Absolutely positively.

KW

 

[Dan Chase]

Kevin, I don't know about IMPBA, but NAMBA has had length minimums in sport hydros as long as I have been in the sport, in fact, where do you think we came up with the minimum lengths for Q & S Sport Hydro??? Even though Q did get screwed up, it was supposed to be 27" just like Sport 20.

Hasn't anyone offered a stronger reason than that?

There will always be two camps. Those who want things clearly defined and those who don't.

BTW, I could go either way.

91202[/snapback]

​

The discussions that have gone on about adding a -1/4" fudge factor or large numbers of racers having to build up the front ends of their boats by 1/8" to meet some minimum length requirement (that no one seems capable of justifying) , make the FE branch the laughing stock of the R/C boating hobby.

I'll bet there is more than one nitro or gas burner biting his tongue after reading these threads.

No BS at all, if I had read internet postings 5 or 6 years ago, that were like those that have been posted in the last 9 months (since Andy started all of the strict length requirement hoopla at the Sardine), I would be running nitro or gas today. Absolutely positively.

KW

91207[/snapback]

​

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

They were the result of there being a scale (i.e. 1/16th and 1/12th) and wanting to keep all of the boats nearly the same length within those scales.

Now, that the scales have been wiped away (a good move), there is no logical need for the length requirements. "We have always done it that way", just does not cut it.

As Doug and Steve have pointed out, the speeds and racing conditions will naturally determine what the appropriate hull lengths should be.

I am still waiting for just one person to put forward a logical reason to not get outside of the stupid box we operate in.

KW

 

[Dan Chase]

1/16 and 1/12 were stupid, they never had anything to do with real scale of the boats. A 1/12 scale unlimited hydro would be about 30-33 inches long. How many of those did you see before we droped the 1/16 and 1/12 and replaced it with O & P?

Why does nitro have minimum lengths in sport 20, sport 40 & sport 60? Wasn't that your argument above??? What about SAW? Do you not think someone would stick 24 cells in a 20 inch hull just to set a record? The hell with it if it sinks as soon as it stops, as long as you get the record.

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hey Guys,

Steve is right about the speeds dictating the right size boat. I'm having a hard time finding a good P Sport, 24" just ain't enough. As far as SAWs go, you wan't to stick 24 cells in a 20 inch boat be my guest. The Rigger classes don't have length rules and you don't see people trying that sort of thing there, why is that?

I belive I would be fine with no length rules, it's just nice to have similar sized boats running together. That's one of the things I don't like about running Q & S together. Not because of any advantage that one has over the other it's just goofey looking on the water.

Paul.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I am still waiting for just one person to put forward a good, logical reason to not get outside of the stupid minimum length box we operate in.

KW

 

[T.S.Davis]

Hey Kevin,

This it?

no reference to scale

no length requirements

no reference to intent

no reference to decorations (to subjective)

no exceptions for existing hulls (behind smooching)

no detail requirements (might get scratched)

no efforts to make transition from nitro easy

This one

"The boat may be purchased ready built, modified from an existing hull, or scratch built from any suitable material generally used in model boat construction."

and this one

"Each boat must have a sponsor’s name or logo affixed to the hull; this sponsor may be of the builder’s choice. Each boat will also display race numbers of the driver’s choice affixed to each side of the hull."

are right out of the existing set of rules under which we are running now. You want rid of those too?

Did I miss any? Toss them on here so we can stop arguing and move on.

How about O,P,LSH,Q&S Not Rigger/cat/Tunnel Class?

The existing rules are stupid as are the authors of the latest proposals. We got all that. Are there any restrictions you would be in favor of? Can we move on to what WOULD be a good rule set?