IMPBA Legal or Not

[Geraghty]

Sorry Rod, you are not yet senile The ballot was removed. My bad.

Here it is :

IMPBA 2005 Ballot #05-002: Sport 20 Hydro (A)

Proposal to add SPORTSMAN 20 HYDRO to rule book.

New page H - 8 will add the following class:

Sportsman 20 Hydro (Sport 20 Hydro)

1. Boat must be inboard powered.

2. Hull must be a three (3) point hydroplane configuration and resemble a Limited

or Unlimited hydroplane design of past or present.

Hulls NOT permitted: outrigger, modified outrigger, tunnels, or canard hulls.

3. Boat must have a name, or sponsors name, or logo, or a racing number affixed to

the hull. (a local or national or fictitious sponsor name is acceptable)

4. Hull shall have a minimum length of 27 inches, and a maximum length of 35 inches.

5. If the bow is recessed behind the tips of the sponsons, that recess shall be no larger than

25% of the overall length of the boat. (refer to Sport Hull Configurations)

6. Boat must have a driver in open cockpit or simulated enclosed cockpit

7. A strut width no greater than 9/16 inch wide may be mounted either under the hull or on the transom with

the farthest end of the drive dog, as measured from the transom not extending out more than 3 inches.

8. See Sport Hull pictorial for clarification of Sport Hull Configurations.

Engine Specifications

1. IMPBA class B engine allowed in SPORTSMAN 20 HYDRO

2. Twin engine installations are NOT allowed in SPORTSMAN 20 HYDRO

General Rules

Racing to be conducted following current IMPBA Contest and Racing Rules, racing

procedures and format.

Also look in the current rulebook for pictures of the Sport 40. These will apply to sport 20 also as noted in rule number 5 and 8.

hope this helps to clarify.

Brian

Thanks Brian,

Reference para.[2].........Does this mean if someone was to build an "exact" 27" replica of the early 90's Winston lobster boat,It would be illegal in the Sport 20 class? :huh: :blink: :unsure:

Rod Geraghty

 

[Rokieboater]

Is this boat legal in NAMBA? Hope not, otherwise I will have to put Wings instead of sponson tubes on my EAGLE SGX and enter it in the next race. <_< :blink: <_< :blink: <_< :blink:

 

[Eric Bourlet]

This boat in one of it's early versions had caused quite a stir in NAMBA nad has been gone over with a fine toothed comb . I have not seen the new version but personly took all the measurements off of the one Mr. Wilson ran and it was designed to the NAMBA rule. It met all of the NAMBA rules including transom width so yes that version was NAMBA legal and was allowed to run at a the NAMBA NAtionals in Springfield Oregon. I have not seen the new version other than the photo but if it meets all of the measurements then yes as the NAMBA Sport Hydro Chairman I would say it is legal IMO.

 

[Brian Blazer]

Rod,

Correct, the winston eagle is illegal. in IMPBA. Both sport40 and sport20

Brian

 

[Don Ferrette]

The "Modified Rigger" rule needs to be described. You can't just say the transom must be X dimensions wide because of the conventionals (round noses). It has to do with how the sponsons are secured, and what the deck looks like, but how do we describe it?

Simple, add the wording like I previously used to describe the differences. Something like "sponson surface decking must be continuos & form a non trip side area to transom with no breaks, openings or vents allowed". To me this would cover them all adequately including the round nose boats. I still feel there needs to also be a minimum transom width as you could add a top "plate" to a rigger sponson & extend it tapering sharply inward as it goes to the transom making it a "continuos surface". This also should become part of ALL the IMPBA sport hydro rules including gas which BTW, I still can't for the life of me understand how it is perceived that in gas sport hydro the canard is allowed. They were looking for a place to stuff that hull configuration & since the cat & rigger guys didn't want it with them it got tossed into sport hydro & that is just plain wrong.

 

[Geraghty]

Rod,

Correct, the winston eagle is illegal. in IMPBA. Both sport40 and sport20

Brian

I am not trying to start a war here but.......is this your "personal" interpretation of the rule or has the IMPBA technical director made a directed ruling on this question?

 

[Brian Blazer]

Remember about the dropped sponson conventionals.

Something like: (please clean up the wording)

Rear of hull at the end of the sponson cannot be narrower than 1/2"(?) of the inside sponson dimension. It is in my head right, but I can't word it properly....

So basically if the distance between sponsons is 10-1/2", the widest part of the boat after the sponsons can be no less than 10". Then you can taper back to whatever you want the transom to be. This should cover all existing legal sport hulls?

Rod,

As far as I know the BBY sport boats which makes the winson style are illegal. I am sure Equi has it documented somewhere.

Don,

Canards are legal in Gas sport hydro...I was completely against this, but since most gas guys have never seen a good canard, they made it legal. Most have only seen the gas Aeromarine Canard, which doesn't run very well IMO. There are no official rulings what a canard is. You can basically turn a rigger backwards and it would be legal. This, in my opinion was a jump in the wrong direction. Sorry about my generalization, but I believe this to be true.

Brian

 

[Brian Schymik]

Rod, I can't speak for the Tech director,

But the idea is that this is an IROC style boat, Sport 20 and sport 40. They are all essentially alike. The driver ability and powerplants set them apart, not the hulls.

That was the intent of the class and should stay that way unless the majority wish to change it. These are IMPBA only statements, of course. I can't speak to the origins of NAMBA sport boats.

This class ( Sport 40 and now 20) has grown with this concept in mind and is now a US-1 class ( sport 40 for now).

As stated, the Lobster boat is not legal in Sport 40. BBY or any other version. This has been ruled by the Tech director. The sport 20 rules are almost identical copies of the Sport 40 rules. It stands to reason the same ruling would apply.

Brian

 

[Eric Bourlet]

As I understand the intent of the NAMBA Sport class is was to model the "spirit" of full size hydros without having to model an actual boat. I don't wish to disrespect IMPBAs idea to make an IROC style class but if you are attempting to do it in Sport Hydro without making a spec hull I think you may have a problem. Just look at Sport 40 developments in the hulls took that class from the old fisher that at best would do a 1:27 mile to the Anderson designed and other modern hulls that can do 1:15 or better. Don't wish to flame or disrespect just food for thought.

 

[namba276]

Guys, I appreciate the debate... :huh: I think if you don't like the boat buy a phil thomas boat, or a dumas. I did not take a rigger and modify it. I grabbed my namba rule book and proceeded to draw a boat that I liked! if you want one I will sell you one. It is a drop sponson sport 21 hull that conforms to namba guide lines... because I race namba. Sorry if it won't work impba. I am looking outside the box, design and theory. As simple as that. BobT.

 

[Geraghty]

Guys, I appreciate the debate... :huh: I think if you don't like the boat buy a phil thomas boat, or a dumas. I did not take a rigger and modify it. I grabbed my namba rule book and proceeded to draw a boat that I liked! if you want one I will sell you one. It is a drop sponson sport 21 hull that conforms to namba guide lines... because I race namba. Sorry if it won't work impba. I am looking outside the box, design and theory. As simple as that. BobT.

The word "intent" has once again reared its ugly head into a set of competition rules.

Individual interpretations of that word "intent" is where all the problems start...........and never end.

The word "intent" in a set of rules is synonymous with the word "opinion".

Any of you guys out there considering building a Sport .20 and using the Betke/Berrari Sport .40 design[current "legal" IMPBA Sport .40 2 lap record holder] as a benchmark,with the addition of a couple ounces of plywood to B.T's boat,you would have the same hydrodynamic footprint of a rigger with the perceived appearance of more traditional 3 point hydro.It would run like hell.

If you don't want a rigger,define and specify exactly what you do want.Don't assume everybody is on the same page with the word "intent".The "intent" approach to the formulation of rules will cause a set of rules trouble everytime.

Point of historical fact........NAMBA was running Sport .40 a minimum of 10 years prior to IMPBA showing any interest in the class whatsoever.

This is why it was called Sport.40.......40 size marine motors were all that was available.The .45 size marine motors had not even shown up on the horizon when Sport .40 was conceived.

 

[missbudpilot55]

Gee Wizz guys I just ask a simple question and get a debate. By the way Bob I will more than likely order one of your boats anyway as I like the looks of the boat and if I have to run it against 21 riggers ,so be it, at least it looks simular to the Winston Eagle "Lobster Boat" with a little free-style design thrown in. Congratulations on a really "appealing look" in the design of the boat

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Guys,

2. Hull must be a three (3) point hydroplane configuration and resemble a Limitedor Unlimited hydroplane design of past or present.

Hulls NOT permitted: outrigger, modified outrigger, tunnels, or canard hulls.

One could argue that Bobs design "resembles" a limited or unlimited hydro. I think some "opinions" of the boat is it's a modified rigger, Bob says it's not. So just because some guys don't like the looks they want to DQ the boat even though it is built within the rules. It's a matter of perseption because I can't see in the 'rules" where this hull shouldn't be allowed to run.

Paul.

 

[Eric Bourlet]

Hmm maybe we will get some new NAMBA members. ;-)

 

[Don Ferrette]

Hi Guys,

2. Hull must be a three (3) point hydroplane configuration and resemble a Limitedor Unlimited hydroplane design of past or present.

Hulls NOT permitted: outrigger, modified outrigger, tunnels, or canard hulls.

One could argue that Bobs design "resembles" a limited or unlimited hydro. I think some "opinions" of the boat is it's a modified rigger, Bob says it's not. So just because some guys don't like the looks they want to DQ the boat even though it is built within the rules. It's a matter of perseption because I can't see in the 'rules" where this hull shouldn't be allowed to run.

Paul.

Sorry Paul, it is not legal even though in your "opinion" you "think" it's legal. Unfortunately it is still basically a rigger, it has 2 distinct sponsons suspended by "modified" booms being a pair of canard wings & a pair of ram wings. There is no commom surface with the decking of the tub, the sponsons are seperated. For the record I like Bob's boat & think it's cool. But it is still an outrigger by design, regardless if intentional or by default & does not resemble any limited or unlimited hydro I know of. And don't say the Winston cause it ain't even close but since it is a modified outrigger that point is moot. The way the rule is currently written if one was presented in my district I would not allow it to run. BUT I don't much care for the rule in it's current form anyway & if you all jog your memory a little you'll remember I said so when this rule was still in discussion stage as I saw this train wreck coming ............ h34r:

Now if you all paid attention to what Rod said about a couple ounces of wood ...............

 

[Don Ferrette]

Hmm maybe we will get some new NAMBA members. ;-)

And this is coming from the organization that openly argues over wether a factory produced direct replacement part (piston) is legal in a stock 21 o/b class because it differs from what was in there when motor was sold new. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. :lol:

Just pokin' fun Eric.

 

[Mark Anderson]

hulls don't make a difference. That's a good one! Damn Phil we should stop improving our boats. I will just run a Dumas.

All of the sport rules are too vague. I have never seen a written definition of a modified rigger. Until there is a defenition that line is a none issue in my mind.

A better way to get a ruling would be to show a set of plans or a boat to the National chairman. Asking on a board is going to get you a bunch of personal replies that are meaning less.

 

[Joe_Knesek]

Thanks Brian,

Reference para.[2].........Does this mean if someone was to build an "exact" 27" replica of the early 90's Winston lobster boat,It would be illegal in the Sport 20 class? :huh: :blink: :unsure:

Rod Geraghty

Rod the Lobster boat is illegal in IMPBA because rear vents are illegal & the A+B measurement makes up more than 25% of the overall length of the hull.

With that said, I think we should be careful not to apply all scale rules that do not and should not apply to a sport class.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Asking on a board is going to get you a bunch of personal replies that are meaning less.

Then perhaps we should just consider your reply meaningless as well ............

I'm a little surprised at your reply & have to believe you did not mean it as it reads since it implies zero respect for anyone's input, be it opinion or whatever......... :blink:

 

[Mike McKnight]

Guys,

In Bob's case it is simply a matter of necessity is the mother of invention. The necessity is that Jim Wilson built a hull to the NAMBA rules and his and another boat have been beating everyone in the class handily. I saw it run two weeks ago and it is a monster improvement over Bob's previous hulls. I was cleaning up and I stopped to walk over to waters edge to watch it.

I've seen it up close and maybe it doesn't have as much common deck as some would like to make it legal for IMPBA rules. Fact of the matter is the sponsons are connected by a wing not booms. It has a cross member that is one piece from sponson transoms through the tub. Last I checked that is not a boom. Thing is it is NAMBA legal and until our rule changes I think Bob will be selling a lot of them. I feel Bob is taking some heat indirectly here. He didn't pioneer this design someone else did. He's just trying to equal or improve on it. Problem is the boat that pushed him in this direction was built to edge of the rules.

I've seen the words "OPINION" and "PERCEPTION" used a lot in this thread. Unfortunately, both NAMBA and IMPBA have rule issues that are somewhat vague and until the rules are more definitive, you are going to see innovations that push the limits and or intent of a rule.