IMPBA Sport 20/40 2012 Rule Proposal, Author Needs Input Please

[tnrcboatracer]

Any word on how to address the legacy issue? My Betke SP40 is an oval record holder. The proposals I have seen would make it illegal. Do I have to retire it? My proposal was the have a legacy registry that would allow current owners to register and campaign their hulls as long as they own them. Easy enough to do in this age of computer; just post the list on IMPBA website. Close the registry 6 months after the new rules are adopted. The CD can check the registry if there are any concerns from the other contestants......

 

[SayMikey]

Jon send me a pic of your boat saymikey@aol

Com

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Will send a pic as soon as I can get to the storage unit. All boat stuff is put up until the house sells.

From the last thread, the Betke hull floor steps in slightly at the sponson transoms. The Betke hull was judged legal by the IMPBA technical director over 12 years ago and is the current SP40 1/3 mile oval record holder (set 9/17/2000). If the new rules make this hull design illegal, is the record retired?

Due to this being a hobby, I think it is appropriate to allow hulls that had been raced when they were legal by the current owner to be allowed to continue to be raced by that owner. The hull would be illegal for transfer to another racer because they would not have raced it prior to the rule changes that made it illegal. In my opinion this legacy list would not be too difficult to create, and maintenance of the list is nonexistant, as the list would be closed 6 months or 1 year after the new rules are adopted. THe list iwopuld be a reference for CD's in the event of a protest. I for one would keep a copy of my hulls registration in the list in my pitbox for just such an occurrence.

 

[Grimracer]

So this allows you to have the one special record boat for heat racing?

I know what you are saying and dont disagree all that much. Just looking at how others "might" view this.

Grim

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I'm saying that the IMPBA Technical Director judged the hull design as legal under the SP40 rules. This design is the current record holder for SP40 1/3 mile oval. I have campaigned this as a legal boat in years past. My point is that the new rule proposals that I have seen render this hull design illegal. DOes this mean I nw have to build a new hull if I want to race SP40? THis is a hobby, I don't think it is right to make what was previously judged as legal for competition now illegal and I need to replace it if I wish to continue to race in the class. I'm saying that the legacy issue needs to be considered. Anyone that has a hull that they raced under the previous rulles that would be made illegal by the new rules should be given the opportunity to register their hull so that they can continue to campaign if they wish under a grandfather clause.

 

[Mike Betke]

Jon send me a pic of your boat saymikey@aol

Com

Mike, I will send you some specs. I should have sent them in a long time ago, but lost track of time.

 

[anthony_marquart]

I know very little about sport hulls and I don't really know the rules for IMPBA on the class. So,.. what is the purpose of the sport hydro class? I just started running sport boats and I have no idea if mine is legal or not. It's not very often that I get to actually go to a race so I'm not real concerned. It just seems that this should be simple and easy for people to run in the sport boat class. or any other class for that matter.. I agree we need to have s definition between a rigger and a sport boat to keep things fair.. but other than that,.. what is the point of it being so complicated?

 

[Mike Betke]

The boat should be grandfathered in. It holds the 2 lap record, but has shown thru the years that it does not have any major advantage in heat racing. It is light and has a hard time in heat racing water. That is why I stopped racing it a while back. I personally think that the Whip is a better heat racing boat. I had perfect conditions the day of a time trial 12 years ago and took advantage of it with a set up that I would never be able to heat race with.

There have been a couple of boats of mine that have been racing over the past few years now and I see no distinct advantage in heat racing. They struggle with the water conditions of heat racing. They may be a little faster down the straights, but have other disadvantages. My new boat that I raced this year is proof of that as it needs to have good water conditions or forget it.

I know that there is another one of my boats finally being finished in the Indy area. I would hate to see that guy have to put it on the shelf after all of these years of having it and finally finishing it. We are supposed to be promoting the hobby, so lets not have people putting boats up and not allowing them to race.

 

[Grimracer]

I know very little about sport hulls and I don't really know the rules for IMPBA on the class. So,.. what is the purpose of the sport hydro class? I just started running sport boats and I have no idea if mine is legal or not. It's not very often that I get to actually go to a race so I'm not real concerned. It just seems that this should be simple and easy for people to run in the sport boat class. or any other class for that matter.. I agree we need to have s definition between a rigger and a sport boat to keep things fair.. but other than that,.. what is the point of it being so complicated?

Because people will, have and are exploiting the grey areas of the rules. There are far too many holes causing animosity when somebody pushes the boundaries INTO the grey area.

It will continue to repeat itself OR like a fire get worse as people toss more tinder.

In saying this SOMEBODY is going to have to play the bad man in this. Somebody is going to get pissed off because maybe there boat does not “fit” the rule.

Truth is I’m not sure how I would react to this myself.. but seems to me the idea is to better the hobby/sport classes, as a whole and not just a few.

None of this from what I can see is directly picking on anybody. Please don’t think I am doing that with this post.

Bing it.. Lets vote!

Grim

 

[anthony_marquart]

Why are there so many grey areas? Why is it so open to interpretation? Sounds to me like this is the right direction. Close the loopholes, remove the grey area,.. simplify the rules, less governing body. More boats,. if someone has a new design that wins,.. get one..

 

[P THOMAS]

Maybe we will get a preview of the new rule proposal version to debate on before the vote. I support the 65% width rule, 65% sponson pad width for transom bottom width. Dont know if Mike Betkes boat conforms to that.

I think that 65% rule and the present rules we have take care of preserving the look of the sport boats without regulating where and how all the lines run from bow to transom.

 

[David Murany]

I agree with Phil but like Mike was saying his boat wouldn't fit under this rule but I have seen them run and nobody is dominating with it. Some clarification is defininetly in order but the boats that are already out there just let run. We don't have an abundance of people in this sport supporting the clubs as it is.

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I'll have to check the exact numbers, but I believe it passed the 65% formula when I last checked, THe big issue wasthe straight keelson until 50% of the afterplane. THe hull floor steps in about 1" at the sponson transoms, and then tapers to the hull transom.

 

[David Murany]

Yeah its pretty close. I think the transom is around 7" and the sponson width was close to 12" or 13".

 

[tnrcboatracer]

As I recall 11 3/4: tunnel, and 9 1/4" transom. Again, the issue was with the hull floor aft of the sponson transoms.

 

[P THOMAS]

As I recall 11 3/4: tunnel, and 9 1/4" transom. Again, the issue was with the hull floor aft of the sponson transons.

65% Sponson ride pad width, not tunnel width is the propsed rule

 

[tnrcboatracer]

The ride pad width and tunnel width are the same on this hull.

 

[Mike Betke]

Can someone explain the ride pad width please.

 

[P THOMAS]

Can someone explain the ride pad width please.

It will measure the distance between the inside of the ride pads, the transom bottom should be at least 65% of that width.

 

[SayMikey]

Here is a bone, I have email Paul several times maybe he will respond soon.....11.The width of the bottom of the transom must be 65% or more of the width between the forward riding surfaces. On a shovelnose/roundnose hull that has a tapered transom bottom the 65% rule will apply to the hull bottom at a point three a one half inches forward of the transom.