IMPBA rules question

[T.S.Davis]

I have talked to Dave Newland , he says he and the BOD will come up with a proposal . FE BOD , hmmm that's a good idea too .

There really is an OPC proposal out there. I seen it with mine own eyes.

 

[Bill Britton]

Looking at this from the outside and impartially, (I am not into FE nor an IMPBA member) I can make this observation just from the conversation;

If you pull up the December, 2008 Roostertail and flip to page 23 you'll find FE's newest version of Sport hydro. Those are supposed to be the next rule set when it gets in the book. Number 12 says there can be no "transom cutouts, cut ups, or bottom extensions". Still no definition of a transom.

It looks to me like you already knew the 'rules' but choose to disregard them.

My original question still hasn't really been addressed.

Actually, you answered your own question with the statement below.

Maybe I need to word it differently. Which rules apply, the ones in the book or the ones in the Roostertail from December of 2008? The 2008 rules are likely the "correct" ones as were voted on but how do we enforce them if we don't distribute them to membership?

You could say that they are not enforceable since they are not in the rule book, and have a semi-valid point. But I think most people would, in the spirit of cooperation, realize that the rules in the 08 Roostertails are in addition to, or supersede those in the rulebook, as you properly state that they have been voted on.

Remember this, The rule book is ALWAYS out of date the moment it is released as it is a semi-living document if you will, of the rules in effect when it was released.

I think most people, using common sense would have interpreted what rules were correct to apply.

As far as a 'Definition' of a transom, I think we all have enough common sense to know what a transom is without the need for a definition. Using the need for one is what causes me to suspect (and I assume many others) that you were already aware of the rules at the time of the build, yet choose not to heed them.

Don't get mad at me. I am just using my own common sense and judgment. I surmise that you already knew the rules, yet choose to build the boat differently, then got called on it.

Again...

Don't get mad at me. I am merely applying blind logic to your argument and take no side of this debate.

 

[Mike Luszcz]

Hey Bill, your not an IMPBA member? I do hope you will be one before the World Tunnel Champs or you might have a hard time running.....

 

[Grimracer]

hey Phil,

Where is the part about the width of an airtrap?

Grim

What Is this a test. HA

8. See Sport Hull pictorial for clarification.

Nitro sport 40 and sport20 H-7 H-8

Pictures on H-9 for the air trap 1/8th inch rule. And other NO NOs

My point buddy..

that along with the notched transom are in the book..

Nice post Bill.. even helps an older IMPBAer like me to just sit back and say.. yep.. this is toy boats.. and people are dedicating there “Extra Time” to help others.. yet some still get amped up..

Spoon, Im sure Bill will do a one time fee.. thats what I would do if I only jumped over one time a year.

I have only met a few people that truly “make a living” at this and they more then most really get what this hobby is all about.

Grim

 

[Bill Britton]

hey Phil,

Where is the part about the width of an airtrap?

Grim

What Is this a test. HA

8. See Sport Hull pictorial for clarification.

Nitro sport 40 and sport20 H-7 H-8

Pictures on H-9 for the air trap 1/8th inch rule. And other NO NOs

My point buddy..

that along with the notched transom are in the book..

Nice post Bill.. even helps an older IMPBAer like me to just sit back and say.. yep.. this is toy boats.. and people are dedicating there "Extra Time" to help others.. yet some still get amped up..

Spoon, Im sure Bill will do a one time fee.. thats what I would do if I only jumped over one time a year.

I have only met a few people that truly "make a living" at this and they more then most really get what this hobby is all about.

Grim

On the contrary, I hope that any changes to his boat, if any will be minor and allow him to run. I think in the end FE is going to be the way in the future. I do agree, in having looked at the rulebook after reading this thread that it leaves a lot to be desired. Also, don't think that NAMBA has itself together as far as the rules are concerned either.

I am guilty of my own interpretation of the rules in the past as well and took it on the chin. You win some lose some. I was just playing devil's advocate...

I actually wouldn't mind having an FE tunnel myself. They look like immense fun.

I probably will join IMPBA this year as we will be running the third race of the STRA series in Savannah and that will make two IMPBA events in a calender year.

 

[T.S.Davis]

As far as a 'Definition' of a transom, I think we all have enough common sense to know what a transom is without the need for a definition. Using the need for one is what causes me to suspect (and I assume many others) that you were already aware of the rules at the time of the build, yet choose not to heed them.

That's not true. I don't typically run IMPBA. Time trials and that's pretty much it. I was involved in the writing of many of the FE sections of the NAMBA rule book. That one I'm familiar with. A guy I respect saw the pics and sent me a note of concern. That's when I starting digging deeper than just the printed book. Then I was annoyed.

My question about defining a transom was me trying to find a way to comply without butchering the boat. Is a transom the back of the boat? End of the fuselage? Point where the hardware is mounted? If the entire trailing edge of the boat were a knife edge, straight across, with the strut under the boat woulde it be legal? A stock Whip has a 1/4" high transom. Picture one with a 0" tall transom. Basically NO vertical at the trailing edge of the boat. Is that legal? Can't tell from the diagrams. That was my original plan for the boat. I talked myself out of it.

As for the rules and my knowledge of them your skirting the point. I can fix the boat if I really want to. I got skeeels. That's not my point. Imagine a model boat guy with some build skills decided to try racing. He opts for electric sport hydro. He joins IMPBA and starts building a hydro. He's not going to know to review the rules that show up in a back issue of the Roostertail from 2 years ago. He's also not going to know that the "nitro specialized classes" sections apply to him either. Because the book doesn't spell that out. I didn't know and I've been doing it for years. Just not in IMPBA.

Yes, I understand it takes time to get changes incorporated. But not this long. There are other organizations that don't take multiple years to get their books up to date. Let's get it together. I'm still on the BOD for NAMBA. I'm not sure how much involvement IMPBA would want from a NAMBA director to fix any real or even perceived problems I think exist in IMPBA. I predict none. haha

I'm still not shouting by the way.

 

[Mark Leyde]

hea Terry dude…

I understand where you are coming from but I have Never felt that creativity was the spoken or un-spoken word with sport hydros.. quite honesty I have always felt the opposite. More of a regimented design class..

ROCK and ROLL

Grim

Grim and all others. I think this is an area of the rules that needs to be changed for all sport hydro classes. I believe that the rules of the sport hydro's states something to the effect that the hull must resemble a past or current limited or unlimited hydroplane hull. Well that opens up it up. I have read the APBA inboard hydroplane rules for many years because my family has raced and built full size inboard hydros in the past. The only major APBA rule to a Hydro's design is that the sponsons can not be more than 60% of the total hull length. Basically the door is wide open to the designer/builders creativity /imagination. So why is it that IMBPA and NAMBA have so many rules that apply to sport hydro?

 

[T.S.Davis]

I'm with ya Mark. That sharp trailing edge was suggested to me by the 2009 Grand National Hydro high points champion. Real boats. We were shooting the poop and what if'ing. That'll learn me. Never trust a guy that races boats when it comes to race boat design. haha

 

[T.S.Davis]

Because the book doesn't spell that out. I didn't know and I've been doing it for years. Just not in IMPBA.

Now that I think about it I've joined IMPBA on two different occasions. I think there was a gap. Maybe not. Can't remember. I'm not current as of today. I've never received an actual rule book. Is that typical? Did I miss a box to check on the app?

 

[Grimracer]

hea Terry dude…

I understand where you are coming from but I have Never felt that creativity was the spoken or un-spoken word with sport hydros.. quite honesty I have always felt the opposite. More of a regimented design class..

ROCK and ROLL

Grim

Grim and all others. I think this is an area of the rules that needs to be changed for all sport hydro classes. I believe that the rules of the sport hydro's states something to the effect that the hull must resemble a past or current limited or unlimited hydroplane hull. Well that opens up it up. I have read the APBA inboard hydroplane rules for many years because my family has raced and built full size inboard hydros in the past. The only major APBA rule to a Hydro's design is that the sponsons can not be more than 60% of the total hull length. Basically the door is wide open to the designer/builders creativity /imagination. So why is it that IMBPA and NAMBA have so many rules that apply to sport hydro?

Because (i think) we have an outrigger class... in full scale hydros its not that way... or at least they really dont have that "design" working well in full scale.

There "IS" room for creativity.. it just needs to be done with in the rules that are laid out.

Personally I have never seen the need to “push past the rules” in sport hydro.. TO ME.. (for the 2 cents that’s worth) it’s a challenge and FUN to win races against people with “Like” boats.

Grim

Grim

 

[Mike Luszcz]

I hope IMPBA can add a P-spec Tunnel SAW record to the lineup soon. I will have to get on that! Mike

 

[chuckg]

If you go to the World tunnel boat post the P Spec rules are posted, we are trying to work with FE guys in Dist 12 to let them run with some Nitro classes. Thanks Dick

I can say for a fact that D12 is willing to work with the FE guys as I am 1 of them.

 

[chuck st romain]

this was a very interesting topic to read..... i am not a impba or namba member, we only have occasional club races here on the island. however when i build fe boats i follow the namba rulebook as a guideline to what i am building just to amuse myself. i find this interesting because we were discussing the rules for our nitro club races and no-one can agree on what is allowed and what is not. my opinion is that the most current published impba or namba rulebook is what shoud be inforced in the respective namba or impba events. if it is not published as common knowledge it should not be inforced. if i was building a boat to race i would have no idea to check rostertail for rules, i check the rulebook on the impba site.

if it came down to it and terrys boat was convicted of a crime, i am sure it would be fine. there is a lawyer out there that could get him off with no problem at all. if the rules are law they should only be inforced if published in the rule book as comon knowledge. you cant say that you need to check someones notepad (roostertail) because you think they might have changed that. if they can publish the new rules in roostertail there is no reason they cant add them as an admendment to the rule book.

 

[chuck st romain]

for anyone from our club that might read this here is the namba rule for stock outboard:

e. For the stock classes, the engine’s parts must remain as originally

manufactured for that brand, size, and style engine. No modifications are

permitted. Interchanging of parts from one series or edition to another is legal

as long as the parts used were made by the manufacturer of the engine and

were used on their outboard engines.

this means that heads, cases, cranks, carbs, pistons, rods from any k&b motor can be pieced together and used in there stock form. it turns out that a 12mm crank and front housing on a ss motor is ok as long as it is not modified.

 

[Jeff]

I find some hypocracy here. There are several threads and builds and racers who run the dumas eagle sport 40 and it has a notched transom.

 

[Grimracer]

Not in the IMPBA.. one must remove the extensions to be legal in the class.

I have seen a bunch of them in our district. I also have one.

Grim

 

[Hydro Junkie]

Someone playing the "devil's advocate"? I thought that was my job :lol:

After reading this thread AND having tried to find information in both the NAMBA and IMPBA rulebooks, this almost sounds like a case of he said/she said. Neither book is really clear on many things. Granted, they both have the engine sizes listed and say the picklefork is limited to................

Why not make it simple? Break the book down into sections like:

Introduction-covers the purpose of the book and how to affect revisions, plain and simple

Hull Requirements-cover all hull classes, styles and limitations so there is no confusion

Nitro Power Requirements-cover engine classes, drive systems and such

Electric Power Requirements-cover motors, batteries, drive systems

Gas Power Requirements-legal engines drive systems, etc

Race Course Requirements-covers course sizes, layouts and shore facilities

R/C Gear Requirements-covers what is required both in the boat and in the TX

Race Rules/Penalties-cover starting proceedures, lane infractions, cuts, bouy infractions, etc

Officer Positions/Duties-seems self explanitory, maybe throw in election proceedures

Last time I looked at either book, it took me 20+ minutes of flipping through pages to NOT FIND what I was looking for. I think it's time for a rewrite of both books so this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future. The books are both full of stuff that covers literally nothing from what I could tell. I dropped two books from 15+ sections down to 9. Why can't the powers that be do that? Again, seems like a no brainer to me....................................................Oh!!! WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I took all the interpretation and politics out didn't I? That will never work

 

[Don Ferrette]

I think it's time for a rewrite of both books so this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future. The books are both full of stuff that covers literally nothing from what I could tell. I dropped two books from 15+ sections down to 9. Why can't the powers that be do that?

I always find it interesting how members of either organization find it soooo easy to comment on what "others" need to do to "fix this" or "correct that". Obviously if HJ was abble to "drop 15+ sections down to 9" then I'd think he would be well on his way to having good input on a re-write. Here's a newsflash for all of you- that card you carry making you a member of either the IMPBA or NAMBA also makes you more than capable of being ... drum roll please ....
PART OF THE SOLUTION.

If you don't like how something is then how about getting off your butts and be a player in helping make things right. Or would that just require too much caring about things and putting forth an effort? Sorry guys but this is one topic that continues to be a thorn in my side. <_<

 

[Hydro Junkie]

Just so you know, Don, I don't belong to either organization.

Would I be willing to put in my .02? Sure, if it would eliminate the confusion caused by the rulebooks in both organizations. I've just spent the last year helping rewrite the bylaws of another group I am an officer in, streamlining and updating as needed to bring them into the 21st Century. Seams to me that it's time for both NAMBA and IMPBA to do the same. I agree with you, Don, input is needed from everyone that attends the events and carries the card. If you think my rough outlline would help, send it to the powers that be and see what they say. It never hurts to get some "outside opinions B)

 

[Eric Bourlet]

Thinking.. maybe what's different about IMPBA and NAMBA is that in the IMPBA the FE Director does not have the final say in anything about FE.. he or she also does not have the final say in anything hull related.. he or she does not have the final say in any particular segment. Heck, same goes for the gas dude, the outboard dude.. the rest of the BOD.

Rather they work with the body like the rest of the directors to all grab old of the transmitter and steer the boat.

When you open page on of the rule book you are opening the book for all IMPBA boating.. Page one is just as important as the last page.

TRUE!.. the impba started out many many years ago and has had nitro in its veins for many years.. BUT!.. I have NEVER known lately (lets call in modern times) the IMPBA not trying to get all involved in playing toy boats.

Bring on the Gas… aha..boats.. that did not come out right

Bring on the Fuel boats!

Bring on the FE boats!

The IMPBA IS listing.

Grim

In NAMBA the Class Chair has no final word on anything, The Class Chair is an advisory position to the President. So it sounds like IMPBA and NAMBA are similar with respect to that. I also saw a comment that the NAMBA FE Chair and BOD were going to propose a rule change. The class chair also can only submit rule proposals through the normal process and that is for the district to pass it and submit it to NAMBA National for a vote of the membership the same as any other NAMBA member can do.