MY NEW SPORT 20 BUILD ...LEGAL OR NOT THAT IS THE QUESTION

[LarryConrad]

Terry,

You are just going to hurt yourself with that thing... Maybe even put an eye out :lol: . Just send it to me! I agree with Chris, submit the design to the IMPBA Technical Chaiman for an official ruling. All three Technical Chairman are members of this forum.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Terry,You are just going to hurt yourself with that thing... Maybe even put an eye out :lol: . Just send it to me! I agree with Chris, submit the design to the IMPBA Technical Chaiman for an official ruling. All three Technical Chairman are members of this forum.

i could just grind it up and put it in your nitro im going to send you..lol oohhh wouldnt that be special..

terry

 

[Mark Bullard]

Sorry still a rigger.

wait till you see my 40 boat im starting on it is gonna send you into defib mark..lol

terry

Terry,

It really does not bother me. I just hate to see you spend alot of time and work on a boat that will not past the rules. I do build alot of riggers and I also build a few sport boats. There is one thing I know for sure is how the rules are spelled out for a sport boat and understand what a modfied rigger is. I guess it is because of all of the riggers I have built.

 

[LarryConrad]

Terry,You are just going to hurt yourself with that thing... Maybe even put an eye out :lol: . Just send it to me! I agree with Chris, submit the design to the IMPBA Technical Chaiman for an official ruling. All three Technical Chairman are members of this forum.

i could just grind it up and put it in your nitro im going to send you..lol oohhh wouldnt that be special..

terry

Labeled "SECRET RECIPE" Naah, It would cost me a small fortune in fuel filters.

 

[SCOTT WITHERELL]

I agree with Mark,continus sponson tunnel,the sponson main rails that make up the full length of the hull,should be the same width at the inter tips to the transom,doesn't matter,how much tapper the after plane nontrip chine is, Sorry Brad but your sport 40 sponsons are mounted on to the side of the nontrip,that goes up past the after plane,that hull should of not passed the sport 40 rule,Sorry just my opinon.We all know that if you run a 5inch tunnel with out seperating the sponsons the hull will just barrel role in the corners,,I feel if you mount the sponsons on the side ,seprate of the main sponson rails with any extra shim(from 1/16--to 4inches)width,it is a modified rigger.Do not worry on my spelling,I'm not in a spelling BEE,Here to help settle an on going problem on the sport rules.With the money we spend on member ship each year and boaters spending lots of money on sport proto types,then find them self's SOL when the hull doesn't pass ,the Organizations need to fix this and make them lot more clarifed .I love sport boat's and I am seeing more sports looking like mod riggers.Sorry if I stepped on some toe's.Its starting to be not what you know,but who you know.I belive that the sport class and the rigger class should be to me,(strait forward)"miles apart".and not seeing how fare we can push the rules.Don't get me wrong there both sweet looking boats,just need better tech rules.

 

[Brad Christy]

Scott,

This is what I was getting at when I talked about construction methods. Are you in a bunch because I built the sponsons seperate and then glued them on? If I had painted the boat before taking the pictures, and hidden my construction methods, would it then be legal in your eyes? At no point are the trailing edges of the sponsons not attached to the main hull. There was alot of thought that went into how to merge the sponsons with the "canoes" so as to not be mistaken for a modified outrigger.

Your comment about "who you know VS what you know" is WWWWAAAAYYYYY off base. I have no personal connection to John Equi, Ron Zaker Jr. nor Mike Schindler. I know them all, but I'm quite sure they did not approve the design because of our aquaintences.

I would agree, the rules regarding just exactly what a "modified outrigger" is needs touched up a bit. I have tried on several occasions to get somebody to describe, in detail, what would make a boat a modified outrigger. So far..... ZIP!!

One thing is for sure, though. It definitely seems as though any time someone designs and builds a boat that doesn't look like an MTO, MUTT or PT, they get criticized for "pushing the limits", or "stretching the rules" or whatever. This is a real shame for at least two reasons. First, and foremost, is the fact that those who complain are only doing so out of concern of being beaten by that new design. Plain and simple. Brian Blazer once told me that nobody will care until you start beating them with it, and then everybody will protest the design, just like what happened in Australia with his wood GSH. Second, and probably most troubling, is the fact that this hobby survives due to innovation from those who think outside the box. If we'd all been building what was already out there, we'd still be running 55-60 MPH with our straight-piped 90 hydros. Somebody here on IW has a quote in their signature that I think applies here. "Those who dance are often considered insane by those who can't hear the music." Most of the people who complain are those who can't innovate, so they just run what they can buy. I am NOT reffering to Mark B. in this comment, as he has some very legitimate observations on the hull this thread is really about, but here are many who fit very snuggly in the "Can't hear the music" category.

BTW, someone earlier made a comment on the Bob Tuttle Sp 20. I have seen one of them, first hand. I've looked it over very closely. I've held it in my hands. I've even made a few parts for it. It is very difinitely NOT a modified outrigger.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[SayMikey]

Scott,
This is what I was getting at when I talked about construction methods. Are you in a bunch because I built the sponsons seperate and then glued them on? If I had painted the boat before taking the pictures, and hidden my construction methods, would it then be legal in your eyes? At no point are the trailing edges of the sponsons not attached to the main hull. There was alot of thought that went into how to merge the sponsons with the "canoes" so as to not be mistaken for a modified outrigger.

Your comment about "who you know VS what you know" is WWWWAAAAYYYYY off base. I have no personal connection to John Equi, Ron Zaker Jr. nor Mike Schindler. I know them all, but I'm quite sure they did not approve the design because of our aquaintences.

I would agree, the rules regarding just exactly what a "modified outrigger" is needs touched up a bit. I have tried on several occasions to get somebody to describe, in detail, what would make a boat a modified outrigger. So far..... ZIP!!

One thing is for sure, though. It definitely seems as though any time someone designs and builds a boat that doesn't look like an MTO, MUTT or PT, they get criticized for "pushing the limits", or "stretching the rules" or whatever. This is a real shame for at least two reasons. First, and foremost, is the fact that those who complain are only doing so out of concern of being beaten by that new design. Plain and simple. Brian Blazer once told me that nobody will care until you start beating them with it, and then everybody will protest the design, just like what happened in Australia with his wood GSH. Second, and probably most troubling, is the fact that this hobby survives due to innovation from those who think outside the box. If we'd all been building what was already out there, we'd still be running 55-60 MPH with our straight-piped 90 hydros. Somebody here on IW has a quote in their signature that I think applies here. "Those who dance are often considered insane by those who can't hear the music." Most of the people who complain are those who can't innovate, so they just run what they can buy. I am NOT reffering to Mark B. in this comment, as he has some very legitimate observations on the hull this thread is really about, but here are many who fit very snuggly in the "Can't hear the music" category.

BTW, someone earlier made a comment on the Bob Tuttle Sp 20. I have seen one of them, first hand. I've looked it over very closely. I've held it in my hands. I've even made a few parts for it. It is very difinitely NOT a modified outrigger.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

Brad i believe he was refering to the earlier version of Bobs Boat. Keep talking guys im watching and listening....My mail box is empty

 

[norm j]

hello guys i was the one who mentioned the bob tuttle boat i'll try and post a picture of one

then lets see what others think of it

norm j

 

[Brad Christy]

Norm,

You're right. THAT is an outrigger, no doubt about it. The one I was refferring to must be a newer design, as it looks nothing like that.

Thanks. Brad.

Titan Racing Components

BlackJack Hydros

 

[dave roach]

The Bob Tuttle boat that you are talking about is a full deck hydro and is not a mod outrigger.The boat Brad is talking about belongs to me and it is not a mod outrigger the picture is in the top left corner of the post.

Thanks

Dave Roach

 

[TERMINATOR]

The Bob Tuttle boat that you are talking about is a full deck hydro and is not a mod outrigger.The boat Brad is talking about belongs to me and it is not a mod outrigger the picture is in the top left corner of the post.
Thanks

Dave Roach

thanks dave and my boat is a spin off of bobs new style hull that passes tech , i liked a few things about it and some of the whiplash and combined them and styled it to my flavor.. fast and racy looking as well, so people can hardly call mine a mod outrigger when it has full built sides, it is a 3 pt hydro, and has the sponsons attatched to the deck with out being adjustable. and has airtraps ..something a outrigger does not and when it is in paint you wont be able to see the seam in the sponsons where they attatch to the center section .. the boat that bob has in the pic of the older design is clearly a mod outrigger.. not mine.

terry

 

[norm j]

yea that older bt design is still cool,it looks like it could be a fun boat to run in any class!just 20 hydro,i have run a mrp python with a kaboom outboard on it, in a 20 hydro class and took points,its always funn to run with a bunch of other same sized boats

you don't always have to be the fastest boat out there!!

norm j

fmbc

 

[Mark Bullard]

It is really hard to explain the design concepts without pictures. If some of you posted pictures of your boat bottoms I could take them a draw on them and expain where they get in trouble at or where they push the rule at and think I could show you what would pass and what would not and what would be to much. There has been some good thoughts on this we just need to point out the faults. I will post some of my boats and point out the construction and what makes it legal also.

 

[TERMINATOR]

It is really hard to explain the design concepts without pictures. If some of you posted pictures of your boat bottoms I could take them a draw on them and expain where they get in trouble at or where they push the rule at and think I could show you what would pass and what would not and what would be to much. There has been some good thoughts on this we just need to point out the faults. I will post some of my boats and point out the construction and what makes it legal also.

the pics of mine are in here, just cannot seem to load them on this page, but i have links to my updates and there is a bottom pic in there, thanks mark

terry

 

[Bob Howard]

If I understand this correct if he would fill in this erea he would be OK. Am I correct?

Bob

 

[TERMINATOR]

If I understand this correct if he would fill in this erea he would be OK. Am I correct?
Bob

i think they are thinking that bob.. but i must say the whiplash of blazers has the same area under the deck that is open and not filled in, so it would hardly be fair to say i have to fill mine in when his is not. i think the best end result is it is heading to a tech directors house this week and that will be the deciding factor. then if approved my next build after i get this one running and perfected , the new one will have full sheeting on the tops of the decks to make some people happier.

terry

 

[Mike Betke]

Well I've been following this topic and thought I would add something since my boat would be considered illegal under what is being talked about on here. I'll attach some pictures of my boat. It has held the IMPBA oval record going on 9 years now. It is a WOF build and has a lot of similarities to Brad's boat (which I would consider legal). The bottom of the boat has unique design features, but I tried to keep the top deck flowing into the sponsons so that it would keep the sport look on top. I played around with filled in riggers prior to this boat and came up with this because I thought it was about as far as I could go without causing to much controversy. The way the IMPBA rules are written, I could have done more to the design, but decided not to.

It is sort of funny that 9 years ago I went through a lot of controversy on legality of the boat and no one could prove that it was illegal under the IMPBA rules. It was different than what everyone is used to seeing, but not illegal. At the time, Marty Davis chimed in on his web site and supported the legality of the boat and after that all of the controversy seemed to go away. Brian Blazer's comment is correct because I raced that boat for a season and not much was said. At the season end when I set the record, boy that's when I got blasted. I have not raced much for the last 7 years and now some guys are coming up with similar designs to what I did back then and here we go again.

As far as some of the comments about non trips having to run the entire tunnel of the boat. I have to disagree. That limits any creativity with the class. How about limiting transom widths? It would be hard to do, but come up with a rule for how the deck flows into the sponsons. It is a fine line and would be hard to put into writing.

By the way Brad and Terry, good luck with your designs. I'll tell you that a light sport boat that comes from a rigger design is probably going to be a lot harder to trim than you think. The running characteristics once you start filling stuff in change big time.

 

[Mike Betke]

Well I've been following this topic and thought I would add something since my boat would be considered illegal under what is being talked about on here. I'll attach some pictures of my boat. It has held the IMPBA oval record going on 9 years now. It is a WOF build and has a lot of similarities to Brad's boat (which I would consider legal). The bottom of the boat has unique design features, but I tried to keep the top deck flowing into the sponsons so that it would keep the sport look on top. I played around with filled in riggers prior to this boat and came up with this because I thought it was about as far as I could go without causing to much controversy. The way the IMPBA rules are written, I could have done more to the design, but decided not to.
It is sort of funny that 9 years ago I went through a lot of controversy on legality of the boat and no one could prove that it was illegal under the IMPBA rules. It was different than what everyone is used to seeing, but not illegal. At the time, Marty Davis chimed in on his web site and supported the legality of the boat and after that all of the controversy seemed to go away. Brian Blazer's comment is correct because I raced that boat for a season and not much was said. At the season end when I set the record, boy that's when I got blasted. I have not raced much for the last 7 years and now some guys are coming up with similar designs to what I did back then and here we go again.

As far as some of the comments about non trips having to run the entire tunnel of the boat. I have to disagree. That limits any creativity with the class. How about limiting transom widths? It would be hard to do, but come up with a rule for how the deck flows into the sponsons. It is a fine line and would be hard to put into writing.

By the way Brad and Terry, good luck with your designs. I'll tell you that a light sport boat that comes from a rigger design is probably going to be a lot harder to trim than you think. The running characteristics once you start filling stuff in change big time.

It will only let me upload this one picture. I'll try to get the pictures of the top deck up later.

 

[Bill Gibson]

Well I've been following this topic and thought I would add something since my boat would be considered illegal under what is being talked about on here. I'll attach some pictures of my boat. It has held the IMPBA oval record going on 9 years now. It is a WOF build and has a lot of similarities to Brad's boat (which I would consider legal). The bottom of the boat has unique design features, but I tried to keep the top deck flowing into the sponsons so that it would keep the sport look on top. I played around with filled in riggers prior to this boat and came up with this because I thought it was about as far as I could go without causing to much controversy. The way the IMPBA rules are written, I could have done more to the design, but decided not to.
It is sort of funny that 9 years ago I went through a lot of controversy on legality of the boat and no one could prove that it was illegal under the IMPBA rules. It was different than what everyone is used to seeing, but not illegal. At the time, Marty Davis chimed in on his web site and supported the legality of the boat and after that all of the controversy seemed to go away. Brian Blazer's comment is correct because I raced that boat for a season and not much was said. At the season end when I set the record, boy that's when I got blasted. I have not raced much for the last 7 years and now some guys are coming up with similar designs to what I did back then and here we go again.

As far as some of the comments about non trips having to run the entire tunnel of the boat. I have to disagree. That limits any creativity with the class. How about limiting transom widths? It would be hard to do, but come up with a rule for how the deck flows into the sponsons. It is a fine line and would be hard to put into writing.

By the way Brad and Terry, good luck with your designs. I'll tell you that a light sport boat that comes from a rigger design is probably going to be a lot harder to trim than you think. The running characteristics once you start filling stuff in change big time.

It kinda goes back to the real boats past and present....which is what sport hydros are supposed to look like.....and that is what the class should be about...using one's imagination by researching full size boats as a guide....there were full size 3-point hydros that had NO non trips, much less partial nontrips.....as well as air traps ..some designs had none as the boats were designed and balanced in such a way that they simply were not needed....The sport hydro class should be the one class where one could see all kinda different designs racing against each other..not just another spec class....I still say i would LOVE to see someone design a COMPETITVE front engine conventional picklefork hydro of the early 70s era on the top side, using modern hull design technology on the bottomside..what i sleeper that would be! Im trying to come up with something, but it is a challenge! I know there are people far more capable then me that could do it! There is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box as long as you are within in the rules....

 

[TERMINATOR]

Well I've been following this topic and thought I would add something since my boat would be considered illegal under what is being talked about on here. I'll attach some pictures of my boat. It has held the IMPBA oval record going on 9 years now. It is a WOF build and has a lot of similarities to Brad's boat (which I would consider legal). The bottom of the boat has unique design features, but I tried to keep the top deck flowing into the sponsons so that it would keep the sport look on top. I played around with filled in riggers prior to this boat and came up with this because I thought it was about as far as I could go without causing to much controversy. The way the IMPBA rules are written, I could have done more to the design, but decided not to.
It is sort of funny that 9 years ago I went through a lot of controversy on legality of the boat and no one could prove that it was illegal under the IMPBA rules. It was different than what everyone is used to seeing, but not illegal. At the time, Marty Davis chimed in on his web site and supported the legality of the boat and after that all of the controversy seemed to go away. Brian Blazer's comment is correct because I raced that boat for a season and not much was said. At the season end when I set the record, boy that's when I got blasted. I have not raced much for the last 7 years and now some guys are coming up with similar designs to what I did back then and here we go again.

As far as some of the comments about non trips having to run the entire tunnel of the boat. I have to disagree. That limits any creativity with the class. How about limiting transom widths? It would be hard to do, but come up with a rule for how the deck flows into the sponsons. It is a fine line and would be hard to put into writing.

By the way Brad and Terry, good luck with your designs. I'll tell you that a light sport boat that comes from a rigger design is probably going to be a lot harder to trim than you think. The running characteristics once you start filling stuff in change big time.

It kinda goes back to the real boats past and present....which is what sport hydros are supposed to look like.....and that is what the class should be about...using one's imagination by researching full size boats as a guide....there were full size 3-point hydros that had NO non trips, much less partial nontrips.....as well as air traps ..some designs had none as the boats were designed and balanced in such a way that they simply were not needed....The sport hydro class should be the one class where one could see all kinda different designs racing against each other..not just another spec class....I still say i would LOVE to see someone design a COMPETITVE front engine conventional picklefork hydro of the early 70s era on the top side, using modern hull design technology on the bottomside..what i sleeper that would be! Im trying to come up with something, but it is a challenge! I know there are people far more capable then me that could do it! There is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box as long as you are within in the rules....

bill that might happen sooner than later..lol

terry