NAMBA's P Limited Rules.

[Darin Jordan]

Here is what I take away from the data

? Our baseline motors (Aquacraft and Proboat/Dynamite all 56mm long) were much higher performing that we gave them credit for. On the water testing still supports this today.
? Pretty much all of motors tested (regardless of length) were inferior to the baseline. MORE (speaking of length) isn?t better! Some will say this contradicts my argument.

What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.

And, you can NOT TECH THE CURRENT RULES! Good Grief, how many times do we have to go through this?

Do what you will. Due Diligence, including YEARS of actual race testing (PSFEMCB has been running this formula for over 3 years now) prove this system works.

Those opposed to this are simply wrong. I'm right, and the data supports my position on this. Do what you will. I could give a rats a$$ at this point.

[dethow]

SMH...
Mike, you've given two motor options for the future. The ProBoat/Dynamite 2000kv and the SSS/Promarine 2030.
It is well known that the AQs MAY not be available much longer.
And the only reason all of the motors you mention currently have advantage is because they are 6-pole compared to 4-pole.

And let's just consider that 3 years from now the AQs are gone and then ProBoat/Dynamite and/or SSS comes out with a slightly larger (58-59mm) 6-pole motor that slightly out preforms the current sized 56mm motor. SO WHAT!?
Or maybe Leopard or another comes out with a 4-pole at 60mm that has more copper inside and can actually compete with the 56mm 6-poles. SO WHAT!?

People can go get that new motor(s) and maybe (at best) pick up 2-3 mph in their boats and now the classes will have truly hit their limit.
The motors will still cost less than $100 and there will be RTR boats that come with those new motors.

And if a specific club has immediate concerns that they don't want their guys to have to spend the $$$ buying a new motor in order to compete... they can (at the club level) outlaw a single motor choice until they as a club are ready to proceed.

If we go with your thought... if that new motor is ever made we have to tell guys to pull that new motor and go spend $100 for a smaller motor. Heck, we'd have that situation right now. A new guy could go buy a Pursuit or Popeye right off OSE and the RTR motor it comes with wouldn't fit within your limit. We all know those boats won't dominate with that stock SSS 4-pole motor but it'd get him/her on the water and be able to compete with the right prop and setup. And then they can choose to make a change later if they want.

The idea is to set a limit which we don't want to exceed while at the same time provide enough options for both now and the future.
Your idea sets a limit to never exceed what we have right now which in turn provides no solution to one of the main reasons this discussion and process started. Choice of motor options is becoming slim and looks to get worse.

But as Darin says... "Do what you will."
I'm just sick of dealing with someone who thinks he is the smartest person in the room when his thought process completely ignores one of the two main reasons why NAMBA changed their rule set.
1.) Provide more motor options. 2.) Be more techable.
And those two things were fully accomplished while still setting a limit on the classes which keeps speeds and costs down for beginners.

What aren't you understanding???

[longballlumber]

What you are MISSING from this interpretation is that ALL of the motors tested that were NOT currently spec'd were 4-POLE motors. They will, by design, NOT have as much torque. And 56mm motors are NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. The standard sizes are 36x50 and 36x60.

This isn't/wasn't missed at all.... I am fully aware the higher performing motors are 6 POLE motors. I am also aware the motors tested outside of the baseline were 4 POLE motors. Just to put a cherry on top of my perceived ignorance - I am also aware the Lehner motors are 2 POLE motors.

So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)

[T.S.Davis]

I don't get it. The opposition to it that is. FE experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. IMPBA said absolutely NOT since inception. Paraphrasing. IMPBA members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the IMPBA representation believe their job is to protect the organization from FE? They're supposed to represent the members. ONLY!!!

Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, FE, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it.

This is the second time I've heard the size limits for all classes. From two guys......anywhere. Ever. In fairness, the one guy was just bitching.

[Darin Jordan]

So what your saying is - As long as there are 56mm 6 pole motors available they will (in general) out perform a 60mm 4 pole motor? I mean your testing data supports that correct? (rhetorical)

My testing data showed that there are equivalent 36x60mm motors that will perform on par with the currently, available for now, P-LTD motors.

Additionally, someone who actually understands what they are doing could take a Lehner 2-Pole, a TP 4-Pole, or a Dynamite 6-Pole, and tailor their setup to get equivalent performance out of any of them.

I'm done with this conversation. You guys do what you want. Clearly there are those who just don't want to deal with logic and reason and data and real-world testing. It's not worth the hassle or the time to argue about this. IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing.

Screw this P-LTD idea. It's clearly been a failure over the past 10-years...

[dethow]

Wait... wait... wait...

Is there an easy way to tell if a motor is 2, 4 or 6 pole without taking it apart?

Could you set a 57mm length limit on 6-pole motors and a 60mm limit on 2 and 4-pole motors?

Maybe... just maybe... we have a happy medium here. As long as that can be tech'd.
Probably can't be done easily thou... Right?

Some images for any following along... that don't know what the difference is between 2, 4 and 6-pole motors

[dethow]

i don't get it. The opposition to it that is. Fe experienced a surge in participation due primarily to "limited" racing. This isn't debatable. Impba said absolutely not since inception. Paraphrasing. Impba members had to look elsewhere for parameters. Does the impba representation believe their job is to protect the organization from fe? They're supposed to represent the members. Only!!!

Lets go crazy. Take a minute to pretend in yer head that we got a proposal to the people and it passed. I know it's a stretch but walk with me. Then we found out..........it's wrong. We blew it. Will there be a congressional inquiry? Anybody's children being sacrificed? Does it cause arthritis? The level of effort put into keeping the membership from deciding is confusing. It's toy boats. Gas, nitro, fe, tug boats..........toys. The goal is to get guys on the water. This has put guys on the water for 10 years. Nope.....not having it.

Like

[Doug Smock]

It seems the majority want National P Limited rules in the IMPBA.

Where did you find the majority?
I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread. Noisy doesn't = majority.

I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

Later

[dethow]

When I got into this hobby (about 5 years ago), I was quickly able to figure out that IMPBA was more about gas/nitro and at a minimum NAMBA was more about FE then IMPBA was. I was able to see that from what clubs around me were running and from a quick look at the rule books.

A few years later (about 2.5 years ago) the NAMBA club I joined made a democratic choice to go from NAMBA to IMPBA with some of the rational being that IMPBA was supposedly looking to develop some new focus on FE. And (at that time) was more open to developing P-Limited/Spec classes which would better fit the dimensional rules our club members liked.

Then about 1.5 years ago it was made obvious to me that IMPBA leadership had no intention on ever allowing Limited/Spec classes into the rule book. I was told as much by two members of leadership and those point of views and efforts continue to this day.

During that same time period I saw ethical and rules violations taking place that I didn't agree with. I decided to not race under the IMPBA moniker and thus left that local club and nothing has changed with the IMPBA since. And I've been told by a member of leadership that the same violations would be done again if that meant not having to allow Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.

As Darin says "IMPBA has made their choice, as has NAMBA. Pick your poison and go racing."
I personally don't see how any club that only races FE could be involved with IMPBA. The organization just doesn't come close to competing with the commitment made by NAMBA to promote FE racing. And this can be proven by the FACT that NAMBA can have National Championship Race Events which include the most popular FE classes (P-Limited) for National Champion Awards without violating its own rule book.

And then factor in a club which has hosted several National Championship Events and would most likely do more in the future... I see no way that club should be involved with IMPBA.

And now Doug says "In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that."
IMPBA does not come close to competing with NAMBA in terms of the amount of FE membership or clubs. If you want to compete with NAMBA and show FE Racers/Clubs that IMPBA is doing what it can to promote the FE hobby... then YES, you need a National class rule for that.

And Doug, where did you find the majority that DON'T want it? You're fairly certain????
Again, making it sound like your opinions are the only ones that matter. I believe there's a term for that...

[Terry Keeley]

Where did you find the majority?
I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread. Noisy doesn't = majority.

I'm confident will work out. In the meantime we're putting boats in the pond and butts on the stand. We've never needed a National class rule for that.

Later

I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

[T.S.Davis]

I'm fairly certain the IMPBA FE and crossover majority isn't represented in this thread.

We'll never know what the majority thinks. You guys have made that perfectly clear. You've decided for the organization and NEVER let the membership decide.

At the first IMPBA Nats in a decade, the most popular classes were limited/spec. At almost every major event with FE for the passed 10 years the most populated FE classes were "limited". Might be exceptions but they are rare. Before there was a "limited" the most popular FE classes were Limited Sport Hydro and Limited Sport Offshore. Pre-brushless motors. Those date back to about 2003. IMPBA missed those boats too. For close to 16 years the most popular classes were some kind of limited. This would be "data". In fairness however......... "data" still isn't an indication of what the membership wants. Only the membership itself can decide what the "majority" wants or thinks. We simply don't know. We never get that far.

The numbers don't lie either. NAMBA members outnumber IMPBA by a lot. Result of FE? Highly (very highly) unlikely but they can field heats at a nationals. We can't. Apparently or we would have had another. So the fact is that IMPBA actually isn't putting butts on the stand. Not FE butts at least.

If by "crossover" you mean NAMBA guys crossing to play IMPBA I'm confident they would be in favor of having the same rule in both organizations.

[Darin Jordan]

I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

"Noisy" is a complete insult to those who have information and experience to add to these conversations. To accuse me of just being "Noisy"... well... clearly isn't "respectful"...

It shows that the "Leadership" of this organization is covering their ears and saying "Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah"...

Again, complete B.S. I've put YEARS of time, energy, and money into DUE DILIGENCE on this topic, racing, researching, buying motors, testing, etc., and have been provided EVERYTHING to the public. Our club has well over 3-seasons of racing under these rules as well... 30+ Members, EVERY class being P-LTD... that's a LOT of experience and data.

My contributions are way more than just "Noise", UNLESS you simply don't CARE about the facts and have NO INTENTION of listening to the members. "P-LTD will never happen in IMPBA"... Yup, you've said it before and NOTHING will change your mind.

When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.

[dethow]

I know "noise factor" doesn't always equal "majority factor" but it seems like the majority here want it anyway.

What would be the harm in sending it out to the membership to determine the "true factor"?

Kind of like a political poll. A small sample of the electorate to determine a trend.

And last time I'm aware this subject came up on Facebook/Elite RC Boats... Majority there also thought IMPBA should have a Limited/Spec rule set similar to NAMBA.

I feel it'd be hard to find more than a hand full of people (who actually race FE) who'd agree that IMPBA should not have Limited/Spec classes in the rule book.
There maybe some debate as to what those rules should be... but the outright exclusion of the classes would not be popular.

And that Terry is why it will not get to membership. Because they know that and they want their opinions on the subject to be the only ones that matter.
Still thinking there's a term for that...

When you show that kind of blatant disrespect for the members of your organization, it's clear there is a dictatorship, not a directorship, and they don't CARE about the facts.

Sure... that would be an acceptable answer.

[JJM591]

Just read the entire thread. This has been said by many, just put it up to vote by members. I know most of us will respect what the majority of membership wants, why won't the IMPBA leadership?

Bottom line the IMPBA exists for the members not the other way around.

Just like in the real world, if your not happy with the current leadership, VOTE THEM OUT.

The P limited classes are the bread and butter of most local clubs and should be represented nationally. The fact that they are not is absurd.

I do enjoy reading everyones responses as most other forums are dead. So put it up for members to vote, it is no skin off any of the leaderships noses if it does or does not pass.

[Doug Smock]

Someone said we need to learn from the gas guys. There is a reason they don't have Super Sport Cat, Rigger, Sport Hydro, and O/B Tunnel.

Write a proposal on a FE Super Sport (or whatever) mono, assign it a motor dimension (or whatever) and see how fast that gets the thumbs up and goes out for a one year trial.

No? All or nothing?

While your talking about can size... Why not limit all the heat racing classes with can sizes!?!?

More boats will finish, the retrieve boat will go out less, and the races will be closer. What's not to like?

Can a can size be a replacement for displacement? No? Ridiculous? You sure?

Some are already promoting Q Limited. Is that next?

Is it?