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

[Mike Betke]

I guess I have to ask why someone who dosen't even run a sport 40 or 20 is submitting a rule change to the board. To keep it simple, lets appoint one person from IMPBA and NAMBA to review the current rules and come up with a simple set of rules to allow both our groups to run a boat at either venue. It can't be that hard to do. The whole purpose of our groups is to foster model boating, not drive some away with stupid rules. One being the added one that states you cannot run twin motors, what purpose does this serve, as it's a displacement based motor class so that should be it. We need to let the guy that sits out in the shop late at nite and comes up with something weird see what it does. If we are to emulate the full size boats, then why disallow the tunnel, carnard or rigger design, Scale allows it and none of those designs are running away with the trophies. The whole rule book is riddled with petty add-ons to prevent this or that guy from running his design. The board as awhole needs to review these changes and throw most of them out. This hobby is suppose to be fun so lets start working on that. My 2 cents worth. bj

I'll second that.

 

[Mark Leyde]

I guess I have to ask why someone who dosen't even run a sport 40 or 20 is submitting a rule change to the board. To keep it simple, lets appoint one person from IMPBA and NAMBA to review the current rules and come up with a simple set of rules to allow both our groups to run a boat at either venue. It can't be that hard to do. The whole purpose of our groups is to foster model boating, not drive some away with stupid rules. One being the added one that states you cannot run twin motors, what purpose does this serve, as it's a displacement based motor class so that should be it. We need to let the guy that sits out in the shop late at nite and comes up with something weird see what it does. If we are to emulate the full size boats, then why disallow the tunnel, carnard or rigger design, Scale allows it and none of those designs are running away with the trophies. The whole rule book is riddled with petty add-ons to prevent this or that guy from running his design. The board as awhole needs to review these changes and throw most of them out. This hobby is suppose to be fun so lets start working on that. My 2 cents worth. bj

I'll second that.

Carried! LOL

You know my brother and I were at a pretty big race that had a great turn out of sport 20's. The only way the person that won the class for the weekend, was because they put that person in heats with super slow boats. And I mean they were so slow I could have beat them with a .12 engine in our hull. They did not have a tweaked out design. The officals stacked it in this guy's faver. I will not give out names but you know them vary well Paul. My point is. It's not the hull design some times. It's the cheating basturds out there that are only looking out for them selfs. Not the class as a whole.

 

[wayne middlemiss]

Even though I don't have a pony in this race, the IMPBA Rulebook, Sport 40 Hydroplane, Boat Specification #2, has this wording,".......resemble a limited or unlimited hydroplane of past or present...."

Many current limited and unlimited hydroplanes now have transom mounted struts. It would seem to me what is being incorporated in full size limited and unlimited hydroplanes should be allowed in a class intended to ".......resemble limited or unlimited hydroplane of past or present......."

Just an observation from the "Left Coast."

JD

the same in aussie and accepted as that cant see an advantage of the transom mounted only for ease of setup is all.

 

[Grimracer]

I guess I have to ask why someone who dosen't even run a sport 40 or 20 is submitting a rule change to the board. To keep it simple, lets appoint one person from IMPBA and NAMBA to review the current rules and come up with a simple set of rules to allow both our groups to run a boat at either venue. It can't be that hard to do. The whole purpose of our groups is to foster model boating, not drive some away with stupid rules. One being the added one that states you cannot run twin motors, what purpose does this serve, as it's a displacement based motor class so that should be it. We need to let the guy that sits out in the shop late at nite and comes up with something weird see what it does. If we are to emulate the full size boats, then why disallow the tunnel, carnard or rigger design, Scale allows it and none of those designs are running away with the trophies. The whole rule book is riddled with petty add-ons to prevent this or that guy from running his design. The board as awhole needs to review these changes and throw most of them out. This hobby is suppose to be fun so lets start working on that. My 2 cents worth. bj

That IS what happen and that proposal yanked..

 

Sport hydro racing as we know it now...., in the IMPBA...., could very well be in its final years.

 

Its been a fun trip!

 

Grim

 

[Don Ferrette]

For those commenting on why someone who doesn't run a sport 40 is reviewing the rules, consider that sometimes there can be good things found coming from a set of unbiased eyes. Just a thought.......................

 

[Grimracer]

No question. AGREE.. Sometimes there best interest is in the organization as a whole and not "just the class they’ like" (not always mind you)

In saying this it’s also important to have an “expert” of some type helping “guide” this person. Without it it’s just an “opinion” on what “might” be wanted by the racers.

Looks to me like Gooycheese has got plenty on his plate.

Grim

 

[SeanKewley]

Attached is a sketch I threw together in about 10 minutes and assumes more detail will be added.

The major part that the new rules should try to explain is what a "modified rigger" is, and the words "modified rigger" should be taken out all together. I have been in this hobby for a long time (22 years) and most of them have been with the sport40. The class is great because there are limiting factors that keep the boats at an even playing field. The quick sketch shows what I believe the "intent" of the class was and should remain.

I was against the gas sport hydro rule change 100% and will always be against the new rules. There is no going back now though. It destroyed the "limiting factors" that kept the manufacturers in check.

For the sport40/20 rules, I would keep them the same from one to the other. I know several of the old timers like the strut under the boat, but it didn't hurt sport20 so I do not believe it would hurt 40. It is just easier to have the strut on the transom. All current real boats have struts on the transom.

I wouldn't dwell on air traps, just as long as they don't act like a planing surface. I liked the 1/8" max width rule that was in place.

The other main area of concern deals with transom width.

Pickles could have a minimum transom width based on the width of the inside sponsons.

Conventionals would not have a minimum transom width since most had a very narrow transom (Farmers, Lloyds etc).

Try to keep the rules as simple as possible. Address the relationship between the inside sponson and the bottom skin, and address the transom width.

Rear shoes: Leave them off because it is a limiting factor.

Transom cutouts: Leave the out because it is a limiting factor.

You MUST maintain the limiting factors to keep the competition at an even playing field.

My thoughts and my thoughts only. Please be nice.

HYDRO LEGALITIES.pdf

Brian Blazer

Blazer Marine

Taken from one of the other sport 20/40 rule discussion threads... Let's keep it simple

 

[Doug Smock]

For those commenting on why someone who doesn't run a sport 40 is reviewing the rules, consider that sometimes there can be good things found coming from a set of unbiased eyes. Just a thought.......................

I agree, and I'm glad that we have people that care enough to get involved in these matters.

Thanks again Paul and those that chose to make a positve contribution to his efforts.

 

[Grimracer]

Sean.. I like what Brian has going and that’s what the deal has been about the entire time.. But..

How far past the keelson must one maintain a straight line.. and or what if I make my line a curve..

The earlier proposal addressed this.

Grim

 

[sebastiencaron]

I agree with the Brian comments for the sport 20/40 rules.

By the way, i submit a proposal sport 40 rules to our district director with the strut on the transom specification.

Sébastien

 

[SeanKewley]

Sean.. I like what Brian has going and that’s what the deal has been about the entire time.. But..

How far past the keelson must one maintain a straight line.. and or what if I make my line a curve..

The earlier proposal addressed this.

Grim

The initial rule proposal, IIRC, stated that the line must be straight to 50% of the afterplane. This would eliminate many popular hulls that have been in use for years. Example: The Whip 20 and 40 curve towards the transom before the 50% afterplane mark... even though the transom width of these hulls fits the rule. This was my concern with the initial rule proposal.

I feel that as long as the line leaves the sponson keelson as described in Brian’s sketch it should be able to be straight, or curve in one direction only (In or out) towards the transom. The limiting factor is the transom width. If you set the transom width requirement to be greater than or equal to X % of the width between the inside of the sponsons it solves the problem. Right?

 

[Grimracer]

BINGO.. the key might be "curve in one direction only"

That.. might just be it! Good thinking!

Grim

 

[Mark Stein]

What is the proposed rule change for the Mutt.

 

[SayMikey]

All the Mutt needs is a little work on the bottom

Its another issue cam could be resolved with a rule tweak

 

[Duck899]

Wow, I read through all this..... To me it does not matter where guys want to mount the strut. But, I will always mount it where the manufacturer says to mount it. Case in point is the Mutt.... under the hull. It all comes down to boat set up anyway and I have yet to see a dumas sport 40 with a transom mounted strut outrun a Mutt.

Change the rules in IMPBA if you like and be done with it.....most important thing to remember is to have fun, enjoy yourselves, promote the hobby and help out your fellow boater and go racin!!!!!

 

[tom galdys]

Can someone tell me what a Mutt is please? Tom

 

[coolhotrods]

Can someone tell me what a Mutt is please? Tom

Its a fast,great handling Sport 40. I will post a pic later. Dustin

 

[57fairlane500]

Here is Eric Bourlet's Mutt at a recent race.

 

[Mark Stein]

See my gallery.

now back to the topic at hand

 

[P THOMAS]

Wow, I read through all this..... To me it does not matter where guys want to mount the strut. But, I will always mount it where the manufacturer says to mount it. Case in point is the Mutt.... under the hull. It all comes down to boat set up anyway and I have yet to see a dumas sport 40 with a transom mounted strut outrun a Mutt.

Change the rules in IMPBA if you like and be done with it.....most important thing to remember is to have fun, enjoy yourselves, promote the hobby and help out your fellow boater and go racin!!!!!

Yea rob that is the best plan.

Namba has changed the strut rule for all sport hydros now .

NAMBA UPDATES

20 - Sport Hydroplane

Modification of rules passed via proposal

sent out in April 2012:

- Proposal 4: Modification of rule B.7 and

deletion of rule B.8.

B. BOAT SPECIFICATIONS

7. Out drive assemblies will be allowed.