New IMPBA Db Rule

[Joe_Knesek]

I was talking to Pat Kelly @ a race this weekend regardign the Db rule hat is up for vote. I was suprised to learn that it's actually an addition to the construction rule instead of a replacement rule. This mean that even though a 20 nitro pipe may pass the Db rule without any add on muffler, a muffler will still be required.

What the sense in that?

 

[Ron Olson]

I agree Joe. I think that if you can meet the dB limit then you've done what's needed. I'll bet that we see some BS "mufflers" being put on just to say that it's muffled. Next, what do they consider a muffler? They're making the rules about as clear as mud again. If you remember at last years Internats, there were some so-called mufflers that were a joke!

 

[Tunnelbill]

That is pretty messed up, I was hoping I could take the mufflers off my 20 Tunnels. If we run under 95db then we should be able to run what ever we want. Why waist the stamp to VOTE???????? :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

[Don Ferrette]

Bill, others- I don't think it can be interpeted that way. Vote for the dB limit & let's go from there. I can tell you this as far as I can see reading the rule book as it currently is written it says tuned pipe or muffler no straight stacks or megaphones. Go read page K-3 item #6 & tell me any different. We talked about the rule proposal today & as far as I'm concerned if you're at less than 95 your o.k. & I see district #12 calling it this way at our races.

 

[rcguy76]

so just a quick question...I was planning on possibly begin racing my 7.5 k & b pro tunnel next season in the stock class...is the stock muffler under 95db

thanks

chris

 

[snowdog-2112]

Re: even though a 20 nitro pipe may pass the Db rule without any add on muffler, a muffler will still be required.

What the sense in that?

------------------------------------

What is the sense? :unsure: The powers at IMPBA hopefully are aware that implementation of this rule will eventually do more harm than good. The question that remains must be answered logically and have a sensible answer.

'If the noise output of the engine meets or exceeds the standard, why is an additional item, one that is unnecessary and has injury potential required?'

The noise standard has been lobbied for two years now and enforced by a couple of districts this year. Don't piggyback an additional "stupid" requirement on this.

Snowdog

 

[Joe_Knesek]

Don, why would Pat state that it's not replacing the current rule if that's not what is going on?

Here is the rule as it was written in the Roostertail. Notice that it says nothing about replacing the current muffler rule. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the Db rule but I also want to be able to use nitro pipes that are under the limit but do not meet the current muffler rule.

"Introduction: This noise rule would appear as item number 8 on page K-3 or K-9 of the Rule Book.

It will be printed as a single page for easy reading. Here are the specifics of how noise will be measured at

IMPBA sanctioned events and the rule enforced:

8. IMPBA Noise Rule

At all IMPBA sanctioned events all boats MUST meet the following conditions, and boat operators accept the

included mandates.

1) A commercially available noise measurement device (Radio Shack or equivalent) must be used.

The noise measurement device will be set to the "A" weighted measuring scale, fast response.

2) The maximum allowed db level for IMPBA Sanctioned events will be 95 db.

3) Measurements must be made from the shoreline area, between the starting line and buoy #1. The

measuring device will be set at a minimum height of 4' to 6' above the ground, with the device pointed

approximately 90 degrees to the running path of the boats 25 feet back from the waters edge. Stable

mounting such as a tripod is strongly recommended. Care should be taken to assure the operator of the

measuring device is in a safe location.

4) If more than one measurement is made, the highest reading will be used. At the discretion of the

CD, a participant may be required to make a solo run to determine a db reading. If a participant

refuses to make a solo run, they will be disqualified from the event.

5) Measurements will only be made on boats that are on the race course, and are well underway

(I.e., not getting on plane or being launched or in the pits). The boat should be traveling

approximately perpendicular to the direction the measuring device is pointed, and the boat

should be located approximately in front of the measurement device in one of the racing lanes.

6) Measurement of the noise level should ideally be performed by the CD, but he/she may be assisted by

others appointed by the CD if this is not practical.

7) A competitor must be warned promptly after the CD determines that their boat exceeds the db limit.

If during the second round the boat still exceeds the db limit, the boat will be disqualified from

competition. All points earned during the first round will be valid.

8) The host club shall provide the measuring devise.

I Vote: YES______________

NO_______________

To accept the above NATIONAL IMPBA NOISE RULES as written.

MEMBER: _________________________________________ IMPBA #___________________________

PHONE: ______________________________________ EMAIL: __________________________________

Mail Ballot to your District Director by 10/31/04. Address are available in the back of this publication."

 

[Ron Olson]

Nope, don't see it either. If it's not in the rule that is being voted on, I don't see how it can be enforced!

Rcguy76, The K&B stock lower units and the cannisters are considered mufflers and not tuned pipes so you're set.

2) The maximum allowed db level for IMPBA Sanctioned events will be 95 db.

That's all that is said about the dB limit, the rest is about how to measure it.

 

[snowdog-2112]

Well that was a rant over nothing! <_< Thanks for the clarification Ron and Joe!

 

[rcguy76]

thanks Ron

 

[Joe_Knesek]

Nope, don't see it either. If it's not in the rule that is being voted on, I don't see how it can be enforced!

Ron & Don, it's not in the rule to be voted on because the muffler rule is already in place. I think your missing the fact that this rule is being ADDED to the rule book. It's not replacing the existing muffler rule. Pat was very clear when he expalined it to me. If if it was replacing the current muffler rule, the ballot would state that it's replacing the current rule. That's how it's been in the past and that's how Pat Kelly explained it to me over the weekend.

 

[Don Ferrette]

I hear ya Joe & personally I think this is a BAD approach. Too much b.s. clouding things up again. I for one plan a lengthy e-mail to Pat about it & personally it should be the dB limit period. How you get there is your business as long as you do it! I am still going to vote YES for the limit as we've spent FAR TOO LONG just getting this far & another delay is the last thing we need. Once the rule is in place it's far easier to "tweak" it

 

[Joe_Knesek]

I hear ya Joe & personally I think this is a BAD approach. Too much b.s. clouding things up again. I for one plan a lengthy e-mail to Pat about it & personally it should be the dB limit period. How you get there is your business as long as you do it! 

67531[/snapback]

​

Right on!

 

[Preston_Hall]

The proposed db rule is definitely and without question an addition. The current rule book stops at #7 Megaphones. The proposed rule is #8 IMPBA Noise Rule

Sounds a little awkward, but whatever. It's more redundant than anything. The only people really affected are the 21's and smaller. Oh well, a rule is a rule and we all race the same.

Now be quiet! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Or at least under 95db.

 

[AWaddle322]

As John points out in the roostertail I am partially to blame for the rule being written the way it is. A very well known boater at our spring race tried to run his 20 hydro with no muffler stating that it was below 95 dbs and that he didn't have to have a muffler because it was quite enough. It was missed for the first round and at the second round it was caught, He got upset and put his boat away. Later in they day this particular boater was having a discusion with John Equi about the subject. I asked why in the world that we would go back to being louder than necessary(I fully believe that mufflers or quite pipes have not hurt our performance). They stated that 95 dbs is low enough. I then stated that I would be some what upset that they had passed a rule that I had taken the money and time to make work (muffler rule) and was sure that other would fill the same way and I also alluded to the fact that it would make the IMPBA look like they had passed a rule that they were going to back up on.

I believe that quiter boats is a way of the future and that we have a rule that works about 98 percent of the time (we have a couple of people that we race with that are taking a good muffling devive and making it louder than the actual nitro pipe would be.)

Going back to the way it was will not help the IMPBA. I believe that all boats should be quiter. I also belive that if we quiten the littler boats that we may possible be not as annoying to the neighbors of our waters but this idea may not work as they may think that they will proggressivley louder all day. Or they may become acustomed to it a little bit at a time. Either way we have done everything possible to protect our waters.Ask yourself the foloowing question as to which you would complain about.All boats at 95 db's or a couple of loud heats?

In my opinion allowing any boat to be louder than needed only hurts the cause.

If you dont like the rule the way it is written, don't vote for it. Voice your opinom to Equi or to your DD. We actuall have a board that is getting stuff done and they can get it changed before next seasons racing really gets up and running.

If you don't like what I have said, I will certainly listen to any constructibe criticism you have but it would almost be impossible to change my mind.

Noise laws are here in every hobbie that I enjoy. In the world of real boats the laws state that it is 86 db's measured 50 feet from your transom. California and Arzonia have passed laws more strigent than this. I just got a new boat to me (32' fountain with twin 502 ci motors) will meet 84 dbs (I know I got checked this past weekend). So if they can make 1004 cubic inches do 84 dbs than why cant we make less than 1.83 cucin inches under 95 dbs. One other thing that I would like to point out is that this law is for any combustion engine used in the state must be under 86 dbs according to law and it doesn't matter if this is in your 1000 acre farm were no one can here you for miles or in the middle of downtown. This law is not enforced often but how would you like it if the next time you were at your pond and the local gaming official or police officer showed up and started giving out $150 tickets? I am also told that these laws (db's vary some but do not go past 90 dbs) are in every state in the nation.

I was also told by they officer that checked me this weekend that the only reason that I was being checked was because I was going into a cove where someone with right connections (lived on the water) had contacted the a right person and that he had been instructed to do so. I also asked this officer if it could be enforced with model boats on a privatley owned pond and was assured that it could be. I had none this officer for 10 years and doubt that he would have given me a tcket but you never know when his boss might be with him.

Noise laws are here to stay and we can either let it extinct rc model boat racing or we can protect ourselves the best we can. We will know shortly how the people of IMPBA feel about this. As i have already pointed out we are breaking the law now,WE DONT NEED ANY EXTRA ATTENTION BROUGHT OUR WAY. If some one really wanted us gone and they couldn't get us gone with noise they certainly could get us gone with a simple call to the EPA.

I am not trying to convince anyone how to vote. Vote how you please but first think about was is best for the future of model boatting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just my humble opinion,

Allen Waddle

 

[Don Ferrette]

Allen-

As you know I'm one of the biggest advocates of quieting things down. I personally feel that we should continue to push the limit lower every couple years. This was part of my noise proposal that I submitted to our former district director before he quit, not sure if it ever got submitted to the board. I proposed that it goes down to 92dB within 2 years of the 95dB limit being enacted. But in the interest of trying to keep things clear, which we, the IMPBA, seem to have great difficulty in doing, I felt that if you met the limit that is where it should stop. I'm still going to vote for the rule as all my boats are well under 95 & all equipped with quiet pipes including my 20. B)

 

[AWaddle322]

I hear ya Joe & personally I think this is a BAD approach. Too much b.s. clouding things up again.

Don,

I must have misunderstood. We are taking an exsisting rule and saying that your muffling device must work. How is this cloudy?

I belive that the only bad approach is going backwards.

I know that my 60 rigger will meet 95 dbs without a muffler or muffled pipe (big bellyed 60 /80 cmb pipe) wich stands to reason that at least 20 ,40 and 60 and that posible the 80 will to since it uses the same pipe. This would mean that I could possible do away with all mufflers on all boats that I currently race. My question still remains the same why make baots louder, we have already done the r and d and found a performance gain with quiter boats.

most peole are scarred to death of this 95 db limits because they have never been tested. the only scary part for me as that I know that in huntsville, alabama i had one reading and at evansville, indiana I had a differnt reading (2db's) with in one week of each other (same boat, motor, pipe and prop). What I have just stated makes me a little worried due to the fact we maye race in 7 states a year. I have quite pipes working on 2 boats at below 85 db's and have a pipe for the 60 and 80 that will get them below 90 but needle becomes very sensitive.

As you can tell i do have mixed emotions about db's but every time I ask myself what is best for model boating i come to the some conclusion. I also no if I have to get quiter that I have already gone through somewhat of a learning curve and I that the learing curve would give me clues how to quiten down in the future.

sincerely,

Allen Waddle

 

[Don Templeton]

Well Mr. Waddle, there goes Formula One, Nascar, Indy Car. etc, etc. etc. As I remember, the limit was 95db 20+ years ago and this is just a bunch of new Bull #%@x.

Don :angry:

 

[Joe_Knesek]

Allen & the IMPBA board, here's a couple points.

1. I am also for the Db rule but 95 Db is 95 Db. How you get to it is not relavent.

2. You can't hear how a pipe looks. Having a construction rule on top of a Db rule serves no use other than to limit pipe selection.

3. The locals only care about the noise. They are not going to call the police because their keen eye noticed that someone was running an unmuffled pipe.

4. It's a NOISE issue not design issue.

I'm sure some of the locals don't like to looks of my red boats. Does that mean we will be voting on acceptible boat color in the next Roostertail?

 

[a lonadier]

why dont the rule book just state that all boats need a muffled devies