Sport hydro

[SeanKewley]

I just checked my FE Whiplash Sport 20. It has the same sponson keelson issue that the Whiplash Sport 40 has (Narrows before the 50% aft plane mark) I think that this proposed diagram will affect Fast Electric too... Maybe I'm wrong.

Taken from Page J-18 in the Fast Electric section for sport hydro...

"Boat and Hull Specifications:

Will follow the same rules as Sport Hydro with the following exception.

1. Hull will not be less then 23-inches in length."

Does this mean that FE sport hydro has to follow this new diagram as well?

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Yes it does.......If rule #2 references rule #1, and rule #1 is altered, it follows rule #2 must abide by the altered rule #1 (unles rule #2 is itself altered at the time rule #1 is altered)

 

[tnrcboatracer]

The keelson portion of hte rule needs to be closely reviewed, (unless the underlying intent is to make a large number of hulls illegal for competition). Maybe the SP40 director or Hydro technical review should have revieiwed the proposal to determine if any existing hulls would be made illegal by the proposal......just a thought..........

Maybe the majority of the hulls could be kept legal is the 50% were changed to 25%. Something to consider. THe other previously legal hulls could be grandfathered in for their current owners.

Sad thing is that I can't even bring this to my District Director since DIstrict 5 shows vacant on the current officers list. Who do I bring my opinion too, the president?

I also find it interesting that there aren't any meeting minutes posted since 2010? If there have been board meetings, where are the minutes?

 

[Dasboatman]

I don't have a clue as to what a "keelson" is, so I consulted my Webster's Dictionary.

"Keelson - a longitudinal beam or set of timbers or metal plates fastened inside the hull of aship along the keel to add structural strength."

I still don't believe I know. I'm still puzzled, how about the rest of you. CHEERS !!! Bob

 

[Grimracer]

First Mike.. I dont have to answer anything... This not a game of questions and answers between me and you.. or anybody..

I support this change... it looks like you dont.. OK.. Thats what voices are all about.

No need to go picking or calling people out.. Is there? Please think about it.

I also have to say.. does anybody real feel the board just barfed out this proposal without ANY forethought. That many people and they all got it wrong?

Just so you know.. this post is not meant to be picking on you or anybody..

Im going to lets it ride and vote when the time comes.. thats if from me.

Grim

 

[RodneyPierce]

I dont think that the new rules are trying to eliminate or outlaw any CURRENT hulls... I do believe that the new rules only try and make sure we dont get to things like a "modified rigger" whatever the heck that is. But I can put money that if you look at what is running in the gas "sport hydro" class, that surely doesnt resemble 95% of whats out there, nor does it represent what the class was made for. I think this is what the clarification is trying to get away from. **this is just an example*** A hull that is 14" wide at the sponsons, then the transom of the boat is a measly 4 inches... Is that a sport 20/40? Is that a "smaller version of Scale"? I dont think so. And I *THINK* this is what the new rule was trying to get away from.

Im not trying to, and hope I didnt step on anyones toes. If I did, I will apologize right now. But anyone who would build a boat to the "gray areas" for lack of better terms, was just trying to push the current (read old) rule set anyways...

John, you bring up some valid points my friend. And I will agree that maybe that needs to be re looked at. But I dont think the propsal was to try and outlaw the whip, or round nose vintage hulls. I think it was to try and get away from what I listed above.

 

[Mike Betke]

First Mike.. I dont have to answer anything... This not a game of questions and answers between me and you.. or anybody..

I support this change... it looks like you dont.. OK.. Thats what voices are all about.

No need to go picking or calling people out.. Is there? Please think about it.

I also have to say.. does anybody real feel the board just barfed out this proposal without ANY forethought. That many people and they all got it wrong?

Just so you know.. this post is not meant to be picking on you or anybody..

Im going to lets it ride and vote when the time comes.. thats if from me.

Grim

Mike,

You are the one that chimed in about how much easier it was going to be so I thought you could interpret the rules questions that I asked. If you do not want to or don't know the answers that is fine. I do not want to call you out or start a war of words with you.

If you read my other posts, you will see that my biggest issue with this is the timing. There are at least 4 people that I know of that have built or prepped boats over the winter to the rules as they were that will not be able to compete this year. Now that we have realized the Blazer and round nose boats do not meet the spec, that number has gotten bigger and the district 2 fleet up here has been cut in half.

I actually support the new rules but they need to give people time to react. The rules also need to be looked at and all questions need to be answered prior to finalization so that it is clear to everyone.

 

[Mike Betke]

By the way, there is a rule in there as well that the leading edge of the prop can only be 3/4" away from the back of your transom. I have a speedmaster strut that is cut off flush to the transom per the rule, I run an 1/8 gap between the drive dog and the strut for the wind up, stock octura drive dog and a 1455 prop. It barely makes it.

Maybe this should be looked at too. I am only looking at one prop, there may be others out there that do not make it.

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Rodney,

As I have said many times, I don't have an issue with the new rules. New hulls can conform to them. I am concerned about the folks that have hulls that were legal, and now are not. The new rules do not address the disposition of legacy hulls (those hulls raced before the new rules were adopted). As Mike and I have both shown, many popular hulls will be made illegal, Whiplash, MTO, PT shovel nose, etc. I agree that it was probably not the intent to make the round nose or Whip hulls illegal, but the rules do just that. There is nothing in the new rules that allow the roundnose hulls to be exempt from the 50% afterplane length straight keelson clause. If a roundnose wins a head or race, the second place (or any other) boat can protest, and the illegal boat will be disqualified. Been there, and have seen it. Yous mention Gas Sport Hydro, but this change does not apply to the Gas Sport hydro, only the NItro SP20 and SP40. When asked why not Gas sport hydro, the answer was purported to be that it would make too many hulls illegal.....hhmmmmmmm

I also wonder why the SP40 and SP20 don't commonize the strut requirements.

I personally would like the 'modified rigger' wording removed. I have a design I would love to build, but someone would probably protest it as a 'modified rigger'. It would meet all of the requirements of the new rules, but one feature of the construction might draw attention to that clause. Funny, but no one protests a hull that is not competitive, but show initiative and come up with a compeititve design, and folks seem to go out of thier way to protest it; but only once it wins a few races.

Grim, have no idea how this proposal came about. But apparently the board did not consider that current hulls would be made illegal. From what I have heard, the board was told that there were no or few current hulls that would be made illegal. It only took a little looking to find multiple popular hulls that would be made illegal by this rule change.Apparently someone didn't do their homework. That is what concerns me about how the board handled this change. The evidence speaks for itself: many current hulls will be made illegal with no means to address the status of previously campaigned hulls if the rule stays as written. This is what I consider a careless decision by the board. That, and what appears to be a disregard for following the constitution of the IMPBA. I would like to see the meeting minutes where this rule proposal was discussed. It is strange that there are no board meeting minutes posted since 2010. What changed at that time that stoppped the posting of meeting minutes?

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I also looked up keelson, and tried to find how it applied to hydroplanes. By definition the keelson is a support structure of the keel. And the keel is the deepest portion of the hul and typically ends at the transom. SO the keel of the sponson ends at the spnson transom. A 'broken keelson like appears to be a misnomer. In my understanding, the keelson is inside of the sponson supporting the keel of the sponson. Thus the keelson cannot be 'broken' aft of the sponson, since it ended at the sponson transom. If the intent of the new rule is to maintain constant bottom sheeting width (tunnel floor) for a percentage of the afterplane, then it should say just that. The term 'broken keelson' only adds to the confusion in my opinion.

I personally don'st understand why this portion of the change is necessary, unless the intent is to outlaw certain current hulls. The intent the sport hydro class was to have full bodied hydro that resembled full scale racing boat. And the embodiment of a full bodied hydro is to have a tunnel floor connection between the sponsons. As long as there is a full width floor at the sponson transom, this is covered. There were many full size hulls that had a narrowed bottom surface aft of the sponson transom.

If there is a desire to improve the SP40 rules, then perhaps the technical committe should look at this and determine the direction. I personally see this proposal as a solution to a nonexistant problem, that in itself causes may problems. Perhaps the membership that are concerned that the current rules are too vague or confusing should voice those specific concernes so that the technical committee can address the areas that are confusing to those folks.

 

[RodneyPierce]

I also looked up keelson, and tried to find how it applied to hydroplanes. By definition the keelson is a support structure of the keel. And the keel is the deepest portion of the hul and typically ends at the transom. SO the keel of the sponson ends at the spnson transom. A 'broken keelson like appears to be a misnomer. In understanding, the keelson is inside of the sponson supporting the keel of the sponson. Thus the keelson cannot be 'broken' aft of the sponson, since it ended at the sponson transom. If the intent of the new rule is to maintain constant bottom sheeting width (tunnel floor) for a percentage of the afterplane, then it should say just that. The term 'broken keelson' only adds to the confusion in my opinion.

I personally don'st understand why this portion of the change is necessary, unless the intent is to outlaw certain current hulls. The intent the sport hydro class was to have full bodied hydro that resembled full scale racing boat. And the embodiment of a full bodied hydro is to have a tunnel floor connection between the sponsons. As long as there is a full width floor at the sponson transom, this is covered. There were many full size hulls that had a narrowed bottom surface aft of the sponson transom.

If there is a desire to improve the SP40 rules, then perhaps the technical committe should look at this and determine the direction. I personally see this proposal as a solution to a nonexistant problem, that in itself causes may problems. Perhaps the membership that are concerned that the current rules are too vague or confusing should voice those specific concernes so that the technical committee can address the areas that are confusing to those folks.

So, if I go from a 14" wide overall at the sponson transom, then directly behind them, cut it in to a total width of 4 inches from there back to the transom, this is OK? Perhaps that is where this "no broken keelson" rule was going? Like I stated earlier.

 

[tnrcboatracer]

No, your hull is illegal for violating the 80% transom width specification. The minimum transom width for an 14" tunnel is 11.2". Any other questions?

Edit: Correction the 4" wide tub would be legal as long as the rear face of the hull transom is 11.2" wide (like a 'T' oe hourglass). Not very hydrodynamic, but legal.....

 

[Grimracer]

The intent the sport hydro class was to have full bodied hydro that resembled full scale racing boat

That assumption looks to also be addressed in the new rule proposal.

Not picking.. just stating.

Grim

 

[RodneyPierce]

No, your hull is illegal for violating the 80% transom width specification. The minimum transom width for an 11" tunnel is 8.8". Any other questions?

not on that particular topic. But what else would you like me to ask. I have plenty of questions

But looks like you picked up on the 80% rule. Nice eh?

 

[tnrcboatracer]

I am an Engineer, I try to pick up on the details.......

The only part of the rule that I object to is the section that makes a bunch of classic and current hulls illegal. Eliminate the 'broken keelson' and "straight keelson for 50% of the afterplane' clauses, and I'm good with it.

PS: See my edit above regarding the 4" tub width..... :lol: Sorry, but I couldn't resist. It's the Engineer in me.......Technically very picky, but perhaps not very practical........LOL

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Grim,

I agree, except that the new rule makes a whole group of hulls illegal; namely the classic round/shovel nose hulls.

As I've said, remove the broken keelson and straight keelson for 50% afterplane rules, and I'm good. Everything else looks fine to me.

Oh, and allow the 40 hulls to have transom mounted struts like the 20 boats. Limit the strut length if you like, but allow it to mount on the transom. OR, conversely, move the 20 strut to under the hull. Just make the strut requirements for 20, 40, and Gas the same......

 

[carlnoki]

as this is going on, I am in the process of building Tracy Dolphins Whip Sp40 for him.

Do I keep going on, or do I completely stop and tell him that I have to stop and that

his hull is illegal?

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm??????????

inquiring minds want to know

 

[RodneyPierce]

I have heard that Mr. Blazer himself was asked about these rules from the IMPBA officers. I dont know if it is true, but would love for Brian to come on here and let us know.

 

[tnrcboatracer]

Hopefully this issue will be addressed very soon, and the results published for all to see and understand.

I'm all for some standardized rules for Sport Hydros. I think that the general rules for all Sport Hydros should be the same: strut location, prop distance from the transom, OAL, Transom width, belly pans, etc. If it is a sport hull, they should be the same. All dimensions can be scaled for the engine class, but in general the general hull requirements should be the same. It would be nice if they could be compatible with NAMBA, with the exception of the cowled over exhaust.....

Just a thought.

 

[Darin Jordan]

For the sake of keeping track, has anyone started a list of those hulls that would be made illegal based on these new rules? Over on OSE (http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?33720-Is-your-FE-Sport-Hydro-legal-under-the-proposed-IMPBA-Rule-Change&p=411382#post411382), some have started listing them... Here are a few:

• MTO sport 40 and sport 20 round noses (illegal-keelson & transom width)
  
• PT Stealth sport 20 (illegal-keelson & transom width)
  
• Whiplash Sport 20 and 40 (illegal-keelson)
  
• Mutt II sport 40 (illegal-air trap width)
  
• H&M Sport 20 size round nose (illegal-keelson & transom width)
  
• H&M SuperSport 21 (illegal-air trap width)
  

I'll update as more are discovered.

Before everyone totally panics, however, it appears that IMPBA directors are already working to address some of the issues here. As Doug Smock keeps telling people... "The sky isn't falling yet"... Maybe discuss as adults, air your concerns, and have a conversation about it. No need to get completely riled up. They are just trial rules at this point, after all...