NAMBA rules discussion

[drobie]

Eddie,

Private email for your answer.

 

[AlanN]

wasn't the whole point of allowing 2p was so we could race with nitro? I do not know what district you referred to but in district 1

Nope not at all Eddie. Remember in MI I showed you a 2P setup so that you could see there wasn't any abuse to the system?

If you follow the history of lipo developement, 2P was devised so that we did not ruin expensive lipo and to allow for other cell chemistry that would be close to being competitive. Example: A123's usually are used in a 3P config to be on equal basis to a lipo. We now have higher (yes, tech changes pretty darn quick as noted by many prior to this post and thread) C rated cells to overcome the necessity to use 2P in all classes.

Also, the combined FE/nitro class is only really being used by Dist 1 as fas as I know. Now this is a blatent infraction of rules. How can you run a combined class for points if there are any rules rules written allowing so?

We have not combined any classes other than OPEN MONO/Sport Hydro/Cat and some 1/8th scale in IMPBA. We really don't have much desire to run along side nitro. As a matter of fact I know that many nitro classes can easliy be dominated by FE (riggers are and exception). So if you keep "beating up" the neighborhood (as I am quite sure Doug Jr has done) the neighborhood won't let you play there anymore.

Now OPEN clases in IMPBA can be quite a competitive endeavor. These are truely difficult classes to get an easy win in.

 

[eddieh]

Alan, I have to say your set ups at the last MI cup were awesome, and doug explained what he was referring too, but it was only a motion and we will still be able to run with the nitro guys in 2008, there are some issues that need to be ironed out I guess with electric running against nitro..

Alan, also there was a vote last year that allowed electric to run against nitro in the open classes and scale hydro, but there was no further changes we had to run exactly like the nitro folks...

I am sure ammendments were made to the rules but you know how it is from decidieng on the rules to actually posting them... these are district rules not national rules.... so it shows there is room for experimentation within the districts...

one thing I WILL say I am sorry not to see on the ballot is the 5 heat Race.... I think that is a very innovative and forward thinking , and I for one really really like it...

ohhhh by the way GO BIG BLUE!!!

 

[AlanN]

one thing I WILL say I am sorry not to see on the ballot is the 5 heat Race.... I think that is a very innovative and forward thinking , and I for one really really like it...

If you think the above is good....try a mile course. That's alot of fun too.

 

[lohring]

The reason length limits seem foolish to most gas and nitro racers is that they will encourage overpowered, hard to handle boats. Gas and nitro boaters have lots of experiences with putting the next larger engine in a given size hull. This usually results in a faster boat that doesn't heat race well. Length limits have been discussed with very experienced gas and nitro racers. All who have voiced an opinion can not understand why they would result in a good set of rules.

If you could give an explanation of your reasoning that makes sense to people who don't race electrics but do understand model boats, there wouldn't be any controversy. Electrics are a fast growing area of the hobby now that they have the power of internal combustion engined boats. If you create classes that aren't fun to race, you won't attract new members. This will be even more true if you can't discuss electric issues with outsiders.

Lohring Miller

 

[D. Newland]

...If you could give an explanation of your reasoning that makes sense to people who don't race electrics but do understand model boats, there wouldn't be any controversy...
Lohring Miller

Hi Lohring-I'll give this a shot. I know you've read alot of this already, but maybe there's a nugget in here that will give you a better idea where we're coming from. Thanks for your time and opinions on this matter.

Using "old" NiMH cells over a 5 year period ('02 to '06), I went through 3 hulls, 2 motors and 3 ESC's for my N-2 mono setup. This is a common occurance with FE when tech changes. "Just go bigger!".

That's expensive. Especially when I'm retiring perfectly good hulls. And, LiPo's hadn't even entered the picture at that time.

Keep in mind that the "just go bigger" mentality still exists with length limits. It will just mean that you have to move up to a bigger class. That's how it should be.

A racer shouldn't have to revamp his N-2 Mono every year or two, espcially with Lipo's and their longer lifespan characteristics. We need stability within the rules that does not favor the new/improved cells that come on the market every quarter. That's why a large and successful group of FE racers chose Length Limits as a direction to tackle, test, test some more and come up with a final set of rules that IMO a majority of FE racers support.

With length limits, we know that the Leaderboard won't change. Sloppy setups and driving will still DNF.

But, one of the main items we are trying to promote with Length Limits is that going to the next largest hull is not the answer. Well, more accurately it's not the right answer, and it shouldn't even be an option unless you want to move up to the next class level.

Take that out of the equation, and the racer will (should) dive in deeper with their existing setup and tune it better...learn to drive better. If they don't change their focus, their racing program will be much of the same. DNF.

You will see experienced FE racers come out of the woodwork with setup and tuning advice, rather than someone saying, "First you've got the get a 33" yada-yada-yada".

We may just see better racing, too.

 

[Darin Jordan]

Nice work David...

If I may add one thing to this... along the lines of moving up a class...

One thing that is NOT addressed in this proposal and that many think should be is the MINIMAM voltage limits... These really should go away... and instead, have minimum HULL LENGTHS added... so that we'd have a Min/Max hull size range for each class, but only a Voltage Max...

This way, if someone wants to try say a 36" Mono on 4S power, then they could go run Q-Mono... the way the rules for NAMBA are currently written, even with a passage of these proposals, that won't be legal... because of the min/max Voltage range for the class...

IMPBA is taking this approach, and members seem to like having that kind of option...

In NAMBA, one thing that currently does work out is that one can run either 3S (11.1V) or 4S (14.8V) in the P-Classes... the 3S setup will produce the same power, but will need to be setup for higher current draw to do it... Still, it gives people options... Especially when you get above 4S, where ESCs become a little harder to get and more expensive... One could run a 36" Delta Force on 4S with a Hydra 240 and be competitive in Q-Mono...

I would have liked to have seen a Min/Max hull size for each class combined with eliminating the minimum voltages for each class... But I imagine that could be addressed at a later time if people saw the benefits of it...

 

[AlanN]

To add onto Davids response (which was quite good):

I am still racing the same n2 mono (IMPBA E1) since 2004. Since I chose to run a bigger hull back then it is still a valid hull to run today. As a matter of fact the same basic electronics are also in the hull.

If you followed along with what Darrins club had done in the SV27 class you would have noticed that they did limit the prop. Others have followed in suit with the rules they have forged.

The biggest point to made here is that the old rules are just that old rules. They had not kept up with any changing tech and were allowing more loopholes for racers than keeping racing tight. If you had read about any of the past years races based on IMPBA rules, you would have noted that the racing was tight and fair. There were N2/E1 mono races that had all racers in contention to win. That was the case in Cleveland. The same held true for other classes too.

The rule changes that have been proposed are from those have oval raced for years. These are not whimsical thoughts dreamed up overnight but a valid change to correct what has not been addressed for several years.