IMPBA Legal or Not

[Glenn 787]

Before I go any futher with my newly designed Sport 21 maybe I better post a picture here first. It's still in its early testing stages and I know a couple things need to be changed to make it legal but I think it's going to be a rocket

https://www.intlwaters.com/gallery/displayimage...album=408&pos=2

 

[namba276]

Guys, I very much appreciate the support,(you know who you are) However I don't feel sorry for going in this direction. I'm very proud of my accomplishments and am enjoying this very much. Sometimes controversy breeds interest. I love this boat and built it to run in my district races. I could go back and build the early wood boat, but 40-50 hours per unit... well not going to happen. Basically, if someone doesn't come up with something new and inovative, the class will die. I built the class in district 9 and am very proud of that. I feel it my job to keep it going. Bob

 

[Mike McKnight]

I dunno Glen it looks like a modified rigger to me.

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Guys,

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.

Exactly my point! This is right where the problem lies.

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.

Don, belive me I understand what your saying. The problem is that because the design is not what your typical sport hydro looks like it's called a modified rigger. Both sponsons share a common frame and the boat has a bit less deck (lol) that some would like to see. Here's a pic off a boat that by your definition would be a rigger. Looks a bit like Bobs boat to me.

Paul.

 

[Geraghty]

Hi Guys,

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.

Exactly my point! This is right where the problem lies.

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.

Don, belive me I understand what your saying. The problem is that because the design is not what your typical sport hydro looks like it's called a modified rigger. Both sponsons share a common frame and the boat has a bit less deck (lol) that some would like to see. Here's a pic off a boat that by your definition would be a rigger. Looks a bit like Bobs boat to me.

Paul.

Keep it a rollin' guys.......maybe we can all get Don Ferette to break out of the starting blocks hard,well on his way to 5600 posts.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Guys, I very much appreciate the support,(you know who you are) However I don't feel sorry for going in this direction. I'm very proud of my accomplishments and am enjoying this very much. Sometimes controversy breeds interest. I love this boat and built it to run in my district races. I could go back and build the early wood boat, but 40-50 hours per unit... well not going to happen. Basically, if someone doesn't come up with something new and inovative, the class will die. I built the class in district 9 and am very proud of that. I feel it my job to keep it going. Bob

Bob, like I said I personally like the boat. Rod G. made an very interesting point about adding a couple ounces of extra wood to make it legal. How about creating an "optional add on kit" for IMPBA racers to give it a "legal" profile as per the current extremely vaguely worded rule?

Keep it a rollin' guys.......maybe we can all get Don Ferette to break out of the starting blocks hard,well on his way to 5600 posts.

You're killin' me Rod. :lol: :lol: :lol:

...and I lumped the two replies together so it's only one more post.

 

[P THOMAS]

Before I go any futher with my newly designed Sport 21 maybe I better post a picture here first. It's still in its early testing stages and I know a couple things need to be changed to make it legal but I think it's going to be a rocket

https://www.intlwaters.com/gallery/displayimage...album=408&pos=2

HA Now thats what we are looking for :lol: Glenn whats the history on that one?

This (Tuttles new boat) style sport boat may be OK It probally looks and handles more like a sport boat than a rigger on the water. With the right kind of paint job it would be more like a sport boat than a thingy.

Im not saying Bobs paint job is poor.

here is the IMPBA rule book paragraphs about sport40

2. Hull must be a three (3)-point hydroplane configuration and resemble a limited or

unlimited hydroplane design of past or present, except outrigger, modified outrigger,

tunnel, or canard hulls are NOT permitted.

3. Boat must have a name, sponsor's name, logo, and/or a racing number affixed to hull

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

6. Boat must have a driver and/or simulated enclosed cockpit.

Bob, like I said I personally like the boat. Rod G. made an very interesting point about adding a couple ounces of extra wood to make it legal. How about creating an "optional add on kit" for IMPBA racers to give it a "legal" profile as per the current extremely vaguely worded rule?

Please dont give the rulers any weird ideas :angry:

We can accept it as is or reject it It should be presented for a hull classification to impba

PHIL

 

[Brian Blazer]

I feel Bob is taking some heat indirectly here. He didn't pioneer this design someone else did.

This discussion isn't meant for Bob to take heat. If I wanted to design a boat for NAMBA rules only, I would have done the exact same thing. Fact is, this design will be faster that an IMPBA style boat.

It is more of a discussion between IMPBA and NAMBA differences.

Brian

 

[Mike McKnight]

I agree that this is illustrating differences in NAMBA and IMPBA rules and that these boats would be faster than an IMPBA boat. It is also illustrating the fact that both have issues where the rules are vague enough that it allows some wiggle room to possibly challenge the integrity of a given class. The sport classes and Scale are usually the ones involved in debates like this, although I remember one about monos a while back about a flat spot on the keel, but these are the classes where that "INTENT" word is thrown around a lot. Mainly do to the fact that these boats are meant to look like real Unlimiteds or Lights or GP's or whatever.

I am a die-hard dedicated Scale nut and probably can be a considered a purist. If I were to apply the same methodology to sport boats that I do to Scale, I don't think either of these boats should be running in Sport 21 due the "INTENT" of it being a sport class. I don't like using that word because of it's misuse in Scale but I can't think of a better one. That being said I'm probably going to buy one of these from Bob and my son and I will build it together for him for a Sunday boat. Why you ask? Well because it's a fast little boat and I think my son would have a blast with it. He's already got a speedy little mono but he wants to drive a scale like dad and this will get him a step closer. He's only 10 but he's wantin' to jump in to Scale after I took him to San Diego last year to see the big boys.

I think it was Phil's post that said something of a sponsor. Bob's boat will have a sponsor....It's the American Cancer Society. I'm printing the ACS breast cancer awareness logo for him to put on that boat as one of the drivers of that boat is a racer and a race mom in our district. She is undergoing treatment for BC and she WILL be a survivor soon.

 

[[email protected]]

Bob has been working hard to keep Sport 20 alive and builds a great boat. I've seen Bob offering guys to run a few of his Sport 20's just to have heats the day of the races. Keep it going Bob!

 

[Mark Anderson]

""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""

Don, what I was saying is that it does not much matter if you or I think it is a legal boat. The only way to find out is to submit it for approval. It is impossible to look at a picture and tell if it meets dimensional limits.

I have asked for a definition of a modified rigger for years and have never gotten one. You can consider my reply any thing you want.

 

[Don Ferrette]

""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""

Don, what I was saying is that it does not much matter if you or I think it is a legal boat. The only way to find out is to submit it for approval. It is impossible to look at a picture and tell if it meets dimensional limits.

I have asked for a definition of a modified rigger for years and have never gotten one. You can consider my reply any thing you want.

Thank you Mark as that is a far better answer. Do you see how the first post reads? No disrespect to you intended, it just did not come across right. In this instance I don't think it is a matter of dimension but rather design. I agree there needs to be a clear definition as to what the hull is supposed to be. Like I said previously, I saw this coming but it seemed nobody wanted to listen at the time .............. h34r:

 

[Mark Bullard]

Ok I have been watching this for awhile. Definition of a rigger or outrigger is a boat that reguires that the support sponsons or canoes be attach by some sort of beam device to the main tub or canoe. I would be safe to say that Don Pickert was watching National Geographics when he came up with the concept of this design, you know the natives in the canoes with the sponsons attach to the bamboo poles. Outrigger designs have not changed much. I have seen round tubes, square bars, rectangle bars, and wing looking bars. Did I say wing looking bars??? The old Wingding was one of these kind of boats. Now you say what is a modified rigger? I feel that modified rigger is any standard outrigger that has had the tube or tubes coverd to try to meet the rule requirement of the 25% cutout rule for a pickel fork design. This is why IMPBA has this rule in place to prevent this from happening. If NAMBA had that same rule in there rules then this boat would be illegal also. This rule in IMBPA rule book is the one that makes this boat illegal to run in IMPBA events.

2. Hull must be a three (3)-point hydroplane configuration and resemble a limited or

unlimited hydroplane design of past or present, except outrigger, modified outrigger,

tunnel, or canard hulls are NOT permitted.

NAMBA's and IMPBA's rules are very close together except for this rule. Now Don not to step on your toes but the present rules are very clear to me as what a Sport Hydro should and should not be in IMPBA rules. There is not any intent or it should be this way. Now Rod said something about the lobster boat being a legal boat. Sorry Rod turn the page of the rule book for the different drawings of the sport boats and you will find more rules. To read a lot of our rules you have to read all of them to get the big picture. This is true with IMPBA and NAMBA. But on the second page of these rules it shows about vents in the hull being illegal. This is what kills the lobster boat.

Now this boat that we are looking at is a beautful, beautful good looking outrigger. And I would not mind owning one myself to just play with. But there is nothing that makes this a sport hydro in IMPBA.

Mark Bullard

 

[Don Ferrette]

Mark I agree with 100%!! Your definition of an outrigger is on the mark, we just need it in print in the rulebook & this whole thing would be moot. You & I know what constitutes an outrigger but it seems there is a need for this to be in print based on 4 pages of chatter. I would think that a simple definition like that could be easily added to the technical section by our technical director perhaps? After all it is just a point for reference & not a rule right?

 

[Mark Bullard]

Mark I agree with 100%!! Your definition of an outrigger is on the mark, we just need it in print in the rulebook & this whole thing would be moot. You & I know what constitutes an outrigger but it seems there is a need for this to be in print based on 4 pages of chatter. I would think that a simple definition like that could be easily added to the technical section by our technical director perhaps? After all it is just a point for reference & not a rule right?

There is no need Don. Under the Technical section of our rule book there is a definition of a 3 point hydro that is also in the sport rules. Here it is but it is on page K-7

2. Hydro Hull Definitions and Restrictions

A Hydro is a hull that has several wetted surfaces when operating at racing speed. A

Hydro can fall in any of the following classifications and for all of these the propeller(s)

will not be considered a suspension point.

a. 3-Point Suspension Hull: Will have two individual steps separated by a continuous

"hull". These steps shall terminate at or before "hull" midpoint. The hull must be

continuous with no steps or extra planning surfaces aft of hull midpoint. Air trap

devices shall be a maximum of .125" across the bottom surface for engine class B

or larger with no restriction on depth. Airfoils, wings, air dams, ground effects

devices, etc., shall have no limitation, considering no hydrodynamic support is

gained from the device. See Nitro Special Classes, “Sportsman Hydro” for

Additional Specialized class boat specifications.

Now the key words are:

3-Point Suspension Hull: Will have two individual steps separated by a continuous

"hull". These steps shall terminate at or before "hull" midpoint. The hull must be

continuous with no steps or extra planning surfaces aft of hull midpoint.

Two individual steps separated by a "continuous hull". Now our sport rules say that the boat must be a 3-point suspension hull this alone stop this kind of boat that we are looking at.

NAMBA's rules on a hydro are not that defined. I have been studying there rules on this and I can see how this outrigger boat fell thru the cracks.

I also know that if you read rules on one thing in our IMPBA rule book that you may have to go to another place to read about rules that are mention in the section that you were reading. But I do not know of any rule book or manual that does not do that. Why If you repeat all of the different rules in every section the rule book would be huge. So this is why you have to jump from section to section. But this also makes for another problem and that is a lot of people only read what they want to read and will not go to the other sections to get the big picture.

Mark

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Guys,

Now the key words are:3-Point Suspension Hull: Will have two individual steps separated by a continuous

"hull". These steps shall terminate at or before "hull" midpoint. The hull must be

continuous with no steps or extra planning surfaces aft of hull midpoint.

So what is a "continuous hull"? Seems to me that a hydro that has a sponson transom that extends from one side to the other (continuous) then sheeted over to complete the "hull" it meets that definition.

Paul.

 

[Tim Kish]

I have been following this thread and I just want to say it is great

to see a group of people discussing something without it turning into a war.

I firmly believe as most do that we need clearer rules to rid us of theese problems.

With that being said I had a thought.

If the modified rigger type sport boat (for lack of something else to call it) has such a great advantage

then why is there not more Lobster boats racing in scale and why was the real boat canned after only a couple years .

Just a thought.

Tim K

 

[Mark Bullard]

Hi Guys,

Now the key words are:3-Point Suspension Hull: Will have two individual steps separated by a continuous

"hull". These steps shall terminate at or before "hull" midpoint. The hull must be

continuous with no steps or extra planning surfaces aft of hull midpoint.

So what is a "continuous hull"? Seems to me that a hydro that has a sponson transom that extends from one side to the other (continuous) then sheeted over to complete the "hull" it meets that definition.

Paul.

Paul the sponsons or canoes the scale guys call is attach to the continuous hull the plate on the inside of the sponsons or canoes. Now these inside plates would attach to the side of the hull forward to aft. If you look in my pictures you will find a good example of a continuous hull before and after the sponsons or canoes are attached.

Mark

I have been following this thread and I just want to say it is great

to see a group of people discussing something without it turning into a war.

I firmly believe as most do that we need clearer rules to rid us of theese problems.

With that being said I had a thought.

If the modified rigger type sport boat (for lack of something else to call it) has such a great advantage

then why is there not more Lobster boats racing in scale and why was the real boat canned after only a couple years .

Just a thought.

Tim K

Tim I do not know the anwser for that question. I am sure that the guys that follow to scale and real boats can anwser that for you.

 

[Don Ferrette]

If the modified rigger type sport boat (for lack of something else to call it) has such a great advantage

then why is there not more Lobster boats racing in scale and why was the real boat canned after only a couple years .

As for the scale part of it the lobster is a great hull, I had one that I recently sold that holds an IMPBA record. I really liked that boat (your gonna like yours Tim ) & it won alot of races but I had it for 5 years and wanted to do some new stuff like my current & all time favorite unlimited the Smokin' Joe's. Also that hull only does one boat & not everyone likes that design. I don't think the real boat really got a chance to be fully developed as when it broke in half they bagged it. And BTW- what makes a good real unlimited does not always make a good scale unlimited & vise versa.

 

[Tim Kish]

Don

Would you say you had a major advantage because of its unique desighn racing against other hulls with your Winston Eagle.

I am just curious

Yes I am going to like my new Lobster and if I could ever figure out how to post a pic or two I would.

Tim K