IMPBA proposal

[Rigged]

Hence my second point that a loss of power failsafe should also be used. I use one. My radio handles loss of RF with its internal failsafe (and also low voltage) and I have a small loss of power failsafe that kills the engine if the receiver ever loses power completely. I also use coreless servos on throttle that have very low resistance to movement when the radio is dead. The spring on a Zenoah is more than adequate to close the throttle when the radio is off.

I know ya do Bill, you got em from me

Wow!! I use normal servos with an average of 50 to 60 inch-ounces of torque. Why do you need so much servo power on the throttle??

You dont... i was being somewhat sarcastic. I use Hitec 311 or Futaba S3001 on the throttle in my boats. But with a 5lb spring on the throttle...it would stress them servos out bigtime i think

 

[Brad Christy]

Guys,

I'm not going to go into the FE thing, other than to say I think a disconnect of some sort should be in place somewhere on the outside of the boat so that a retrieve man can come back with all of his fingers. I personally have never seen an electric "come alive" on it's own, knowing that they can, I can tell you that if I ever have to pick one up out on the course, I wrapping a towel around the prop if there is no disconnect. If it decides to come to life and smokes the motor, batteries and ESC, it ain't my problem..........

That said, I had a thought a while back when I first got into the DSM radios with integral failsafes. Why can't the manufacurers build them with a small capacitor that would allow the reciever to run one servo to a programmed set-point in the event of a total voltage loss. The signal loss failsafe puts the steering to center and the throttle to closed, and the voltage loss failsafe could just run the throttle closed. I wouldn't think it would take much current to do that, would it?

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[Preston_Hall]

I guess I am the only person here that thinks starting boats in the water is a good thing. Just think, no more hiding behind trees or standing in line at the port-a-potty. Nope, just pee in the "wet" pit.

 

[Ray Sametz]

I guess I am the only person here that thinks starting boats in the water is a good thing. Just think, no more hiding behind trees or standing in line at the port-a-potty. Nope, just pee in the "wet" pit.

Only you would think of that. B)

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

I personally have never seen an electric "come alive" on it's own, knowing that they can, I can tell you that if I ever have to pick one up out on the course, I wrapping a towel around the prop if there is no disconnect. If it decides to come to life and smokes the motor, batteries and ESC, it ain't my problem..........

See, this is the heart of the issue. Having never seen it people think that the proposed solution is a good one. In fact, I agree with the one you posted!!

Now answer me this, what does the retrieve boat guy do when he comes up to a flipped boat where the motor is running?? He still has to pull the boat out of the water to access the "safety plug" so I am unclear how this has enhanced safety?? In fact he has to handle it even more looking for the plug, turning it over, etc. All this increase the possibility he drops it in his lap.

Pull it, put it in the rack with the prop pointed away and be done with it. Throw a towel on it if you are really spooked.

 

[Thomas Hulbert]

Walking to the pond with a running boat is alot different than picking up a dead electric flipped on the pond where the motor could kick on and due damage to the person tring to get the boat into the pickup boat.

To stop slipping while walking how about using cleats ( football , golf shoes). Oh wait a minute cold still slip on stairs and concrete. No matter what shoes you wear good treads are needed on wet surfaces.

Lets put up warning signs ( slippery when wet ) at the ponds edge.

Who will be the first to make fun of the sign .

For that matter stickers ALL over FE boats warning of uncontroled starts of the motor when being energised

 

[Brad Christy]

Bill,

Come on, now, turn the light on. I know somebody's home........ I'm not worried about a motor that is running when I get to it. I can see that it is running. It's the one that isn't running, but could at any moment, that worries me.

So tell me: What's the big deal with some sort of a disconnect? Is it the weight issue? A current loss at the disconnect? Aesthetics? Is it the fact that non-FE guys think it's a good idea and you guys didn't think of it? What is it? Some of you FE guys are resisting a common sense thing like it's a death sentence. I don't understand............. :huh:

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[bzubee]

So now the retrieve boat needs to carry towels for each boat they pick up? One boat is not usually a problem but you tart adding boats with them all balanced on a temporay fixture in a bouncing retrieve boat and the possibility of the props turning you have a risk that needs to be mitigated as for picking up the boat most retrieve boat workers are used to picking up a dead boat and turning off the radio and giving a signal back to shore now all they really need to do is pull a safety loop and they are ensured no power will be going to the motor. You know switches fail and that alone is a good enough reason not to go wit the receiver switch mention in earlier posts.

I personally have never seen an electric "come alive" on it's own, knowing that they can, I can tell you that if I ever have to pick one up out on the course, I wrapping a towel around the prop if there is no disconnect. If it decides to come to life and smokes the motor, batteries and ESC, it ain't my problem..........

See, this is the heart of the issue. Having never seen it people think that the proposed solution is a good one. In fact, I agree with the one you posted!!

Now answer me this, what does the retrieve boat guy do when he comes up to a flipped boat where the motor is running?? He still has to pull the boat out of the water to access the "safety plug" so I am unclear how this has enhanced safety?? In fact he has to handle it even more looking for the plug, turning it over, etc. All this increase the possibility he drops it in his lap.

Pull it, put it in the rack with the prop pointed away and be done with it. Throw a towel on it if you are really spooked.

 

[Don Ferrette]

See, this is the heart of the issue. Having never seen it people think that the proposed solution is a good one. In fact, ..<snip>

One question Bill, have you joined IMPBA yet?

-Radio power (Pull Off) switches on the outside of the hull.- Rules for the driver of the dead boat (radio)

- Rules for the operator of the retrieval boat.

-ETC

-A radio pull switch does nothing for a wet RX or wet/shorted/failed ESC

-Rules for drivers of the dead boat? We can't even get some of you to follow the rules for live boats!!

-Rules for the operator of the retrieval boat? Geez, we're lucky they even do that job, not touching this one.

-ETC? There is no ETC.

So all this as opposed to one little piece of heavy gauge wire loop with two nice gold plated connector pins on them? I was kinda on the fence about this but after reading some of the "solutions" getting offered up it's getting absurd especially when it's something like trying to pin responsibility elsewhere. So thanks to Bill and Larry my side of the fence choice just got a little easier.

 

[SayMikey]

See, this is the heart of the issue. Having never seen it people think that the proposed solution is a good one. In fact, ..<snip>

One question Bill, have you joined IMPBA yet?

-Radio power (Pull Off) switches on the outside of the hull.- Rules for the driver of the dead boat (radio)

- Rules for the operator of the retrieval boat.

-ETC

-A radio pull switch does nothing for a wet RX or wet/shorted/failed ESC

-Rules for drivers of the dead boat? We can't even get some of you to follow the rules for live boats!!

-Rules for the operator of the retrieval boat? Geez, we're lucky they even do that job, not touching this one.

-ETC? There is no ETC.

So all this as opposed to one little piece of heavy gauge wire loop with two nice gold plated connector pins on them? I was kinda on the fence about this but after reading some of the "solutions" getting offered up it's getting absurd especially when it's something like trying to pin responsibility elsewhere. So thanks to Bill and Larry my side of the fence choice just got a little easier.

Towells and fire extingusier when you stall it someting is going to get hot.

 

[Mark Bullard]

Looks like Brad and I are the only one that knows what goes on with electrical equipment and the thing that has to be done before working around it. The FE guys that I have talk to really don't know how their stuff works and this is why they are butting this proposal. Brad is very right about the boat in the water. If the boat is running upside down when you get to it that person will know what to do when retrieving it with a disconnect loop. But the boat that is setting in the retrieve boat without a disconnect loop that comes alive is the one you have to look out for. The loop is very cheap insurance.

 

[Ron Olson]

I just looked at the thread on RRR: http://www.rumrunnerracing.com/feforums/sh...ead.php?t=27555 and it appears that quite a few are in favor of it. There are also some shots of how it's done. Another way could be to use a blade style fuse with a zip-tie on it to make it easier to disconnect.

Electrical shorts can and do happen so it would be safer to have an external way to shut off the power especially in the case of a fire.

Should SAW boats be exempt? No. Many use their SAW boats as their oval racing boats too. Make it across the board.

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

Looks like Brad and I are the only one that knows what goes on with electrical equipment and the thing that has to be done before working around it. The FE guys that I have talk to really don't know how their stuff works and this is why they are butting this proposal.

Yep, that's the reason. The guys that are actually involved are clueless and are not interested in safety. That's why it is so important that people that are not active in the area of interest save us from our ignorance.

Unbelievable.

 

[bzubee]

Bill as a safety professional I'm sure you know OSHA's fact that the workers are the ones that do not use the PPE and are always coming up with short cuts. Plus their excuse is almost we have been doing it that way for years. That is what Mark is refering to. Sometimes it takes someone outside the circle to see a problem and then use the people inside the circle to help solve the problem.

Looks like Brad and I are the only one that knows what goes on with electrical equipment and the thing that has to be done before working around it. The FE guys that I have talk to really don't know how their stuff works and this is why they are butting this proposal.

Yep, that's the reason. The guys that are actually involved are clueless and are not interested in safety. That's why it is so important that people that are not active in the area of interest save us from our ignorance.

Unbelievable.

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

People keep missing my point, which is, the perception of the risk is not what you think it is and the current controls have proven adequate to address those risks. If we simply enhance and improve the hazard communication process the need for an engineered solution is eliminated.

Fresh eyes are always worth having, but those eyes need to be able to qualify risk to properly assess the real versus perceived risks. Perfect example, more people are afraid to fly than afraid to drive in a car. Yet driving is far and away the more dangerous activity. There is an incorrect understanding of the relative risks. Many non-FE racers see the potential for a uncommanded start up as dangerous, and it can be. But the current risk management program addresses that risk regardless of whether a person unaccustomed to the activity feels so.

I hate to say this but the very fact that there have been very few, if any, injuries caused by this potential situation proves the point. The argument that safety loops will make it "safer" suffers from the perception problem I noted above. Since there is no history of injury then how will you assess that it is indeed "safer" when there is no evidence that the current risk management program is not adequate.

With regard to the current topic my position is that the current risk management and safety protocols have proven to be more than adequate at managing the risk. I do not see the need for a change. As I keep saying, it is a solution without a problem.

Nothing we do is ever 100% safe. There are always risks. But as long as those risks are identified and properly communicated they can be managed. We accept the risks posed by the use of gasoline (fire, toxicity) and manage those with warnings and requirements for fire extinguishers. Europe prohibits the use of nitromethane in model fuels due to the hazardous nature of nitromethane. Should we follow that lead? Or can we manage the risk using the current standards of care?

If there was no possible loss of performance then I would have no issues, but since it has been clearly stated that performance will suffer (hence the SAWS exemption) I am at a loss to understand why this is seen as necessary.

That is as clearly and dispassionately as I can state my position. I take exception with those that think or write that I am taking this position simply to be argumentative or by doing so I actually want people to get hurt.

 

[SayMikey]

People keep missing my point, which is, the perception of the risk is not what you think it is and the current controls have proven adequate to address those risks. If we simply enhance and improve the hazard communication process the need for an engineered solution is eliminated.
Fresh eyes are always worth having, but those eyes need to be able to qualify risk to properly assess the real versus perceived risks. Perfect example, more people are afraid to fly than afraid to drive in a car. Yet driving is far and away the more dangerous activity. There is an incorrect understanding of the relative risks. Many non-FE racers see the potential for a uncommanded start up as dangerous, and it can be. But the current risk management program addresses that risk regardless of whether a person unaccustomed to the activity feels so.

I hate to say this but the very fact that there have been very few, if any, injuries caused by this potential situation proves the point. The argument that safety loops will make it "safer" suffers from the perception problem I noted above. Since there is no history of injury then how will you assess that it is indeed "safer" when there is no evidence that the current risk management program is not adequate.

With regard to the current topic my position is that the current risk management and safety protocols have proven to be more than adequate at managing the risk. I do not see the need for a change. As I keep saying, it is a solution without a problem.

Nothing we do is ever 100% safe. There are always risks. But as long as those risks are identified and properly communicated they can be managed. We accept the risks posed by the use of gasoline (fire, toxicity) and manage those with warnings and requirements for fire extinguishers. Europe prohibits the use of nitromethane in model fuels due to the hazardous nature of nitromethane. Should we follow that lead? Or can we manage the risk using the current standards of care?

If there was no possible loss of performance then I would have no issues, but since it has been clearly stated that performance will suffer (hence the SAWS exemption) I am at a loss to understand why this is seen as necessary.

That is as clearly and dispassionately as I can state my position. I take exception with those that think or write that I am taking this position simply to be argumentative or by doing so I actually want people to get hurt.

Anything less than a loop to cut all power is stupidity. I will not send any retrieve boat after a boat that has potential of a spinning prop! Its one thing to know and understand a dead boat is a dead boat,but with the chance how ever slight of a restart its going to be an issue. After all how hard can it be to install a loop tp prevent a chance of injury. For my money this thread is DEAD

 

[Mark Bullard]

I myself have alot of experince with rotating equipment, as in electric motor repair and the controls that control them of every type that is used. Every motor has to have a method of turning if on and off and some way to protect it from overload. Switch, contactor, VFD. They must have some form of disconnect from the power source, like disconnect switch, fused or none fused or a circuit breaker. They must have some way to protect the curcuit from ground fault like a fused disconnect or curcuit breaker. Now in the control of a motor there must be ways to protect the operators or workers around this rotating equipment. Interlock switchs, limit switchs, switchs mounted on doors to prevent motors from starting when they are control automatic.

I grew up in this business. In my early years when I was about 20 years old I was working on a customer's bale press in a cotton gin. A cotton gin has about 75 electric motors driving all kinds on rotating equipment. They are control mostly by start/stop buttons but a few are started automatic. Working on this bale press I was ajusting on an interlock switch that makes sure the box is line up for the press ram and the tramper be able to operate. A standard switch for the times. These presses are part above the floor and part below the floor. The tramper takes the cotton down the slide and tramps it in the box. The bottom part of the press has two boxes, one to tramp in and the other to press out and a automatic curcuit to rotate the box. I got the switch line back up so that the tramper and the ram could function. I call out to the owner and told him to try the system. He did not notice that one of his workers had the lint gate open and was hanging in the box under the tramper. The tramper started and the end results was the man was killed. The owner never gin cotton again because it was a man that work for him for over 40 years, he turned the gin it over to is son in law and daughter to run and that gin still runs today. This was a very bad accident and there never was a lawsuit. But that was before those days. What could have been done to prevent this I said to myself. I came up with the idea to mount a switch on the tramper door to prevent the motor from starting with the door opened. This is been standard on all new equipment sold to date from that time.

So to end this risk and cutout power loop on the electric boats is very cheap insurance. We should not have to get anyone hurt to be force to make this kind of rule.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

The problem remains, How many times has this happened??

Bill Z. said it happened to him when he turned off the radio battery switch.

Joe Ford from CC says: that this can happen when turning off the radio

battery switch on a CC ESC..

So maybe we should not have a radio battery switch.

Larry

 

[Brad Christy]

Bill,

I guess we'll just wait until someone loses a finger or two before we actually recognize any risk. Have you actually SEEN a set of fingers that's been run through a running prop. I have and it ain't pretty. We had a guy in our club got his hand mangled early this spring. It was his fault, but still, it left an impression on me. I fully understand that the risk is minimal. I also fully understand that the risk is REAL. Just because it's never happened, does NOT mean the risk is non-existent, nor does it mean tha "current risk management systems are adequate". I'm not going to pretend I know how your electrical systems work on your boats. You say there are risk management systems in place. I HOPE you're not referring to a set of rules. At this point, I have to assume that these systems are on-board and part of the radio system. In my opinion, this is like leaving the rat to guard the cheese. If the only reason you are resistant to this is a loss of performance, tough. Suck it up and get on with it, just like the fuel guys did when it was voted on that we would maintain a noise level. Most of us lost some performance when striving for the 92 dB mark, at least at first. It's like this: If all of you FE guys follow the right path, nobody loses any more than anybody else. Well maybe those who arent willing to develope a better set-up.

Like I said before, you guys can do whatever you want. If I go out in the retrieve boat for an FE boat, and there is not a disconnect of some sort, the prop's getting a towel wrapped around it. Sorry, I like having ten fingers..... And if it catches fire as a result, as Mike noted, it's going back in the pond.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[bzubee]

Bill we have just been lucky so far on many risk items in modeling of all sorts this happens to be one area we can actually use an inexpensive method to ensure the safety of modelers. Engineering a safety factor is such as Lock out Tag Out is standard mitigation through out industries all over. This is nothing more than that. I guess as you state we could just make it mandatory to throw a towel over any FE boats prop so if it starts up then it will definately burn something up if it comes on. This should be a simple fix the europeans use this method and do not have a problem how you can state there will be when racers her edo not and have not actuall tried the loops all they are doing is theorizing what could happen if a loop is used.

People keep missing my point, which is, the perception of the risk is not what you think it is and the current controls have proven adequate to address those risks. If we simply enhance and improve the hazard communication process the need for an engineered solution is eliminated.
Fresh eyes are always worth having, but those eyes need to be able to qualify risk to properly assess the real versus perceived risks. Perfect example, more people are afraid to fly than afraid to drive in a car. Yet driving is far and away the more dangerous activity. There is an incorrect understanding of the relative risks. Many non-FE racers see the potential for a uncommanded start up as dangerous, and it can be. But the current risk management program addresses that risk regardless of whether a person unaccustomed to the activity feels so.

I hate to say this but the very fact that there have been very few, if any, injuries caused by this potential situation proves the point. The argument that safety loops will make it "safer" suffers from the perception problem I noted above. Since there is no history of injury then how will you assess that it is indeed "safer" when there is no evidence that the current risk management program is not adequate.

With regard to the current topic my position is that the current risk management and safety protocols have proven to be more than adequate at managing the risk. I do not see the need for a change. As I keep saying, it is a solution without a problem.

Nothing we do is ever 100% safe. There are always risks. But as long as those risks are identified and properly communicated they can be managed. We accept the risks posed by the use of gasoline (fire, toxicity) and manage those with warnings and requirements for fire extinguishers. Europe prohibits the use of nitromethane in model fuels due to the hazardous nature of nitromethane. Should we follow that lead? Or can we manage the risk using the current standards of care?

If there was no possible loss of performance then I would have no issues, but since it has been clearly stated that performance will suffer (hence the SAWS exemption) I am at a loss to understand why this is seen as necessary.

That is as clearly and dispassionately as I can state my position. I take exception with those that think or write that I am taking this position simply to be argumentative or by doing so I actually want people to get hurt.