Displacement Size

[Preston_Hall]

You probably wouldn't have said that if you where heat racing at 101 mph right? Now I'm not saying that I race at 101 mph but isn't that one of the common goals of model boating? To see just how fast you can make it go.

If there where a 100mph cap and I could run 150mph then I would slow it down without a problem. Just like the muffler rule, it really didn't matter to me since everybody was on a level playing field. As with the muffler rule safety will eventually dictate a speed as well.

As with any racing it is who crosses the line first. Finch proved to me that top SAW speed means little. It is all in the turns. All the oval records he has took 1+ seconds off of where by gaining turn speed. That is gained in boat setup.

It's a tough call but the bottom line is that "F" does not mean "twin" so there really is not any prejudice. It is a class which has been classified as such.

 

[Buckshot]

But we still end up with no valid reasons why the limit shouldn't be uped.

No X-class dosen't mean twins I agree but if someone so desired to they could run a twin .21 in B-Hydro.

William Shackelford

 

[Brad Christy]

Guys,

I've been thinking along Mike's line for a while now.

What does "investment" have to do with anything? Most of the guys in this hobby have to have the latest and greatest anyway, and recycle their fleet on a regular basis in order to do so, no matter the cost. And besides, if increasing the maximum displacement is going to make everyone go out and buy new engines, I guess we should just tell all the engine manufacturers to stop making improvements to their engines. Are we going to outlaw it for racing if someone comes out with an engine with 50% more output than anyone elses with the same displacement? I don't think so..........

Why draw a line? My opinion is that if you can shoehorn it into a 25 lb boat, more power to ya. I think we're already bumping the ceiling, anyway, as far as performance. For the most part, hull design is holding engine technology in check as it is. Marty Davis once said that we may never see the "perfect" hull design, and that is our limiting factor, not engine output.

It is not a safetly issue. These boats are already lethal. More lethal is still just lethal, just the same as dead is dead. A 7 lb boat running 90+MPH carries enough kinetic energy to kill a horse. It isn't a manufacurer issue, either. If Kalistratov wanted to make a cube, we'd already have one. The same could be said for Picco. K&B already has a cube that could very easily be converted for marine use. What it really boils down to is the age old "fear of change". Period.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[Buckshot]

What it really boils down to is the age old "fear of change". Period.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

105440[/snapback]

​

You've just hit the nail on the head!

I see no reason not to change.

-William Shackelford-

 

[piper_chuck]

I see no reason not to change.

Others do see reasons to not change, but you disagree. So, by all means submit a proposal and let its merit be argued again.

 

[piper_chuck]

Guys,
I've been thinking along Mike's line for a while now.

What does "investment" have to do with anything? Most of the guys in this hobby have to have the latest and greatest anyway, and recycle their fleet on a regular basis in order to do so, no matter the cost. And besides, if increasing the maximum displacement is going to make everyone go out and buy new engines, I guess we should just tell all the engine manufacturers to stop making improvements to their engines. Are we going to outlaw it for racing if someone comes out with an engine with 50% more output than anyone elses with the same displacement? I don't think so..........

There is a difference between using an improved design to gain power and just making a bigger engine.

 

[Don Ferrette]

What it really boils down to is the age old "fear of change". Period.

105440[/snapback]

​

Nothing like that at all Brad. It's more like we don't need to change the rules every time the wind blows. You want a good example, look at the IMPBA gas rules, these guys keep changing the rules so much there ain't two gas guys together who can tell you what's current & what ain't. We've got enough s#!t that needs re-writing in the current rulebook without adding to the pile. :unsure:

 

[Brad Christy]

Don,

We've got enough s#!t that needs re-writing in the current rulebook without adding to the pile.

Agreed. I'm not really saying that the rule SHOULD be changed. Only that I think it would be cool if it were. I feel that if it's in production, you should be able to "twin" it. "Open" means "open", right????????

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[Brad Christy]

Piper Chuck,

There is a difference between using an improved design to gain power and just making a bigger engine.

Then why do nearly all engine manufacturers build anything larger than 11cc? I'll tell ya.......... MORE POWER!

I just don't understand the logic that says we can do whatever we want (given certain class restrictions) for more speed, but increasing displacement makes it a safety issue or costs other people money.............??????????

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[Joe_Knesek]

What to do when .105's come out?????  h34r:

105289[/snapback]

​

They run a 1.05 and a .90 to get to 1.95! Then they bitch that they need two .99's.

 

[piper_chuck]

Then why do nearly all engine manufacturers build anything larger than 11cc? I'll tell ya.......... MORE POWER!

Are the manufacturers building these engines specifically for twin hydros? I doubt it.

 

[Buckshot]

I see no reason not to change.

Others do see reasons to not change, but you disagree. So, by all means submit a proposal and let its merit be argued again.

105455[/snapback]

​

[SIZE=14pt]Well then what exactly are the reasons for disagreement??? [/SIZE] :blink:

I keep hearing No, No, No but with no explanation that makes any kind of relevance to displacement. :unsure:

Don't worry yourself, I have already put in the proposed rule change to my district director.

William Shackelford

 

[Buckshot]

There is a difference between using an improved design to gain power and just making a bigger engine.

105456[/snapback]

​

WhAt?! :blink:

AEPoz*IK'JGRAM cRpw wEOT-U[iJMVJU;SAE9U7YV08

QA]['864VM0T;AZE;/Y-UIV4 AZLREEA4L5J,YZAELC8/IYJ

^ Thats my head pounding on the keyboard^

-William Shackelford-

 

[BigChuck]

On the performance end of things. Two 1.0 motors are not going to be any faster than any current set of 80's or 90's.

The 1.0 motors ( correct me if I am worng) were made to give the single engine boats more punch.

But the evoluation on the design of new motors means that the new Rs series motors are more, within the same numbers and the RUMORED MAC 90 motor will be the same as will the new design of the K motor.

Why even bring IT UP!!!!! If you WIN with 1.0's and no one knows fine. If you LOSE

and know one knows. You have learned something.

 

[AndyBrown]

Why stop at twin 100's?? Supertigre makes a 45 cc nitro engine with a ball bear supported drum induction like MAC/Kalistratov. They are nice engines... I have modified a couple of them. They weight about 6 pounds each........that leaves 13 pounds for a hull and hardware.

45 cc's X 2 = 90 cc's = 5.4 Cubic Inches in a 25 pound boat! A stronger crank and rod and 60% nitro could give us 40 HorsePower!

Yea Baby!!! let's go Racin' !!!!! :lol:

We are getting ready to make 5/16 flex shafts at CMDi, but maybe we'll need 3/8".....Oh yea......Call the Prop manufactures!

While we're at it, how about a bigger race course????

So I just say scrap that 100 whimpy stuff!!! :lol: :lol:

I'm talkin' TWIN 270's dude! :lol:

 

[Mike Stewart]

Andy,

Did you say "new .105 motor"??????????????? You could run about 11 of them Is that a hint someones gonna be making a 1.05 soon??

 

[Preston_Hall]

The reason manufactures make bigger engines is because plenty of people will by them thinking they will go faster. It is only to make sales.

I remember one race where they wouldn't let me run my 21 with the larger boats. Was that because of rules? I doubt it. :lol: Nobody wants to see a 40 whip a twin either.

I'll vote yes on twin 1.0s but that would be the last increase I would support.

You can't dismiss gas wanting twins because they have their own rules.

Buck,

Your arguement should be that if gas can run 36cc (2.2ci) then so should nitro.

 

[NAMBA860]

I HAVE RUN SOME 100 CMB ENGINES AND I HAVE FOUND THE .67 AND .80 TO BE FASTER TAHN THE ONE INCH WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT TO 100'S IN A BOAT AND SLOW IT DOWN.

 

[Piston1]

A proposal to make Twin Hydro a recognized category was submitted to IMPBA recently. This proposal was endorsed by many of the members that are posting in this thread. That is the place to address this issue, and perhaps we need to followup and remove Twins from F Hydro. The proposal was submitted with the same engine displacement limit as F Hydro. Up the limit in that category (Twin Hydro), if you want my vote. The energy stored by weight and speed is the issue, not the engine displacement.

JOSE ORTIZ

 

[Tofastformellow]

"I'm talkin' TWIN 270's dude! "

crazy stuff....

LOL's

Jason