Sport 40 strut mounting

[P THOMAS]

Even with Namba allowing outdrives, I will still mount the strut under the hull as per instructions with the Mutt and PT hulls I will be assembling this winter.

Yea cause we know it works

 

[Matt Smith]

Even with Namba allowing outdrives, I will still mount the strut under the hull as per instructions with the Mutt and PT hulls I will be assembling this winter.

I agree. My SS45 runs pretty darn good with the strut underneath. The next one I build will be the same as well.

 

[Don Ferrette]

NAMBA is NAMBA and IMPBA is IMPBA. IMPBA has no rule as to the exhaust thru the transom as they also have different rules. If there is NO difference in running speeds or handling with the placement of the strut,why change the rule. There is no complaint about it being under the hull, It is still as competitive so you say. You say no there is no difference then why such a push to change the rule. When Sport40 was started,there were no other Sport classes. I understand,that the smaller sport classes can cause a space problem but there is NO space problem in Sport40. Part of the competition is in the set up of your boat as well as the motorheads doing their thing. Sport40 was a clean class and fun to run the way it is. Setting up your boat is a great part of the hobby. Leave the class alone. Let the members speak. Sport40 has always been a true class of it's own. I would like to change the question around from "it's always been that way and if it's not broken, why fix it" to WHY SHOULD THIS CHANGE BE MADE????What is the advantage to changing it??? VOTE NO TO THE CHANGE and let the purist's have the class they like. Tom Galdys

Tom, you do realize there are IMPBA sport hydro classes with hulls bigger than a sport 40? It's not about "smaller" boats at all, it's called CONSISTENCY among ALL the sport hydro classes in the IMPBA, what is so difficult to understand? Even Phil Thomas who's boats are one of the reasons Sport 40 is where it is today wants the change. If you like it under the boat then you can leave it there so it has no impact on you and the way your boat is set up. AGAIN, please provide one simple reason as to why other than "that's the way it's been". What are you afraid of? You're acting like this will have some monumental impact on the class without offering a single shred of evidence to support your arguement. And BTW - when did sport 40 become a "purist class"? Hopefully the membership will speak in large numbers and this change will get made.

 

[HOTWATER]

Much easier to run the strut on the transom for Q Sport (FE Sport 40) guys...that's a good reason for the change...just my opinion

-Kent

 

[tom galdys]

Don, You want me to answer the age old questions you pose, but why did you not answer mine? I will say no more. I DO NOT want to argue with my friends. I was just expressing my opinion. Tom

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don, You want me to answer the age old questions you pose, but why did you not answer mine? I will say no more. I DO NOT want to argue with my friends. I was just expressing my opinion. Tom

Tom, I feel I did answer your question - the change is to bring consistency across the board in the IMPBA sport hydro classes. We have a total of 9 sport hydro classes- 5 in FE, 3 in nitro and 1 in gas, all allow transom mounted struts expect sport 40. Honestly if there was a significant performance difference then I seriously doubt that I'd be so strongly in favor of it. I don't want to argue with you either my friend, we'll just agree to disagree on this one I guess.

 

[sebastiencaron]

I'm agree with Don. Why all the other class in IMPBA allow that rules and not the sport 40? It's make no sens for me.

Like Don say, they don't have any performance difference between the strut under the hull and on the transom. We have both in our club and all the boat have the same performance.

Tom, i will realy like to know why are you so afraid about this rule addition?

 

[FloridaScaleBoater]

One thing I can say against the rule change making it consistent for all sport hydro classes,,, Gas Sport Hydro allows what I and MANY others would consider a "modified" outrigger type boat/hull to be run.

MY thoughts on this are, if you allow this rule change to go into affect,,, it's just a matter of time that someone will make the argument of,,, "well they allow it in Gas Sport Hydro, why not Sport-40"?

And,,,, as far as the exposed exhaust,,, I think it SHOULD be covered, or run through the transom,,,, just me though

Oh,,, and since I knew the man personally that drafted the original set of rules for IMPBA,,, I'm gonna stay with the way he had them written....

My 2 cents

 

[Grimracer]

Regarding Sebastan and Dons commnets

yet.. if that’s the ONLY good reason then it too is not a great one.

I feel that the "Need" to change is just not constituted..its just a weak argument for a change.

Real question is….Is it "going to make for better racing?"...

na... not a bit...

To me its OK if one class is different then the others in the way the boats setup.. Truth is the ONLY thing they have in common are they are sport hydroplanes. So what...

Grim

 

[tom galdys]

Sebastien, Both Rick and Grim said it all in a satisfactory manner. I won't change mine to a transom mount and I am getting a new one from Phil. I've just been racing them for 25 years and don't see the reason to change Sport40. Change anything else but change IS NOT NEEDED. OK, I will stay silent from here.Thanks Tom

 

[Matt Smith]

Sebastien, Both Rick and Grim said it all in a satisfactory manner. I won't change mine to a transom mount and I am getting a new one from Phil. I've just been racing them for 25 years and don't see the reason to change Sport40. Change anything else but change IS NOT NEEDED. OK, I will stay silent from here.Thanks Tom

Tom, new PT Sport40? Guess I will have to be on my game next season!

 

[tom galdys]

Look out Matt, I can still get you with my old one, yours is lighter though. Tom

 

[Matt Smith]

Look out Matt, I can still get you with my old one, yours is lighter though. Tom

Probably because yours has about 2 Lbs of CA!

 

[Randy Rapedius]

Yes, change is needed in my opinion and its been way overdue. The fact that many IMPBA members have been requesting this change for the past 15 years and with it being made a trial rule by our IMPBA Exec this year shows that a change is in the wind. We already have a dozen racers in IMPBA District 1 who have rear mounted struts and I can say there is NO DIFFERENCE in performance. If you don't want to have a rear mounted strut then so be it however, why push to not allow what others want? If people want a change it will show after the vote.

 

[HOTWATER]

Yup...if after the votes are in, and it has been decided that the change will be made, I believe that you should be allowed to mount under the hull as well as transom mounted...your choice...I will be voting on this change for sure!

 

[Grimracer]

Yes, change is needed in my opinion and its been way overdue. The fact that many IMPBA members have been requesting this change for the past 15 years and with it being made a trial rule by our IMPBA Exec this year shows that a change is in the wind. We already have a dozen racers in IMPBA District 1 who have rear mounted struts and I can say there is NO DIFFERENCE in performance. If you don't want to have a rear mounted strut then so be it however, why push to not allow what others want? If people want a change it will show after the vote.

The simple fact is people are looking for AN ADVANTAGE.. even though SOME say there is no advantage to having it on the back, perception says LONGER IS BETTER.

I like racing within "limits".. others look to take ADVANTAGE of limits. It is just that simple.. no more and no less.

Lets vote! I accept all outcomes!



Grim

 

[Rhonda Pickard]

Rule should be under the boat and have all boats the same not if you want it this way do it that way Robert

 

[Randy Rapedius]

Yes, change is needed in my opinion and its been way overdue. The fact that many IMPBA members have been requesting this change for the past 15 years and with it being made a trial rule by our IMPBA Exec this year shows that a change is in the wind. We already have a dozen racers in IMPBA District 1 who have rear mounted struts and I can say there is NO DIFFERENCE in performance. If you don't want to have a rear mounted strut then so be it however, why push to not allow what others want? If people want a change it will show after the vote.

The simple fact is people are looking for AN ADVANTAGE.. even though SOME say there is no advantage to having it on the back, perception says LONGER IS BETTER.

I like racing within "limits".. others look to take ADVANTAGE of limits. It is just that simple.. no more and no less.

Lets vote! I accept all outcomes!

Grim

Sorry Grim your statement is false when it comes to IMPBA District 1 in Eastern Canada. The racers In Quebec build their Sport 40's as exact replicas of the full size Grand Prix hydroplanes. All the full size GP boats run a rear strut. The modelers also run straight turn fins (no hooks) just as the full size boats do. These rc racers are NOT looking for an advantage and the only ''limits'' they are looking to acheive is to produce exact replicas.

 

[SayMikey]

Right or wrong I hope the memberships votes count and it gets done soon. All this bickering gets us no where,oh and my vote is no

 

[Randy Cartright]

If no advantage why change ? Save paper.