Summary of NAMBA FE rule Proposals for 2008

[Jeff]

Lohring, After 6 months of debate, why is there only one rules proposal? Point, counter point article in propwash is great but what about the rules proposal from thee other side? Where is it?

Jeff

 

[DPeterson]

Lohring, After 6 months of debate, why is there only one rules proposal? Point, counter point article in propwash is great but what about the rules proposal from thee other side? Where is it?

I couldn't agree more. All the hot air / keyboard opposition to the length rule proposal. If you have a better idea to control cost and to maintain membership in NAMBA put it into a rule proposal and submit it to the ELECTRIC Racers to a vote. Enouph said - Period.

Doug Peterson

 

[lohring]

I just raced under the Australian electric rules on a 1500 meter (about 1 mile) course. This rule set encouraged higher voltage, lower current setups than are run under NAMBA rules. These rules seemed to work as well as any. They allowed innovation while restricting power. There are many ways to do the same thing. A successful method of tightly controlling performance was used in the Super V 27 class at the 2007 Electric Nationals. All boats ran the same propeller. Just controlling propeller diameter will limit boat performance without any other restrictions. Sure, you can run more rpm, but there are limits to how well this will work. If costs are the issue, you can run claimer rules. That is, a racer must be willing to sell his motor and speed control to anyone for a set amount. You can specify the maximum current rating of the allowed speed control. You can specify motor size or weight.

These are only a few of the possible ways to restrict performance and/or costs. A year ago I wrote an article comparing the possible calculated electric power plant performance under the new lipo rules to gas and nitro engine power. Now, after a year of running those rules, racers are finding that they need to run hull sizes similar to the equivalent nitro engines from that article. What a surprise.

Lohring Miller

 

[Darin Jordan]

A year ago I wrote an article comparing the possible calculated electric power plant performance under the new lipo rules to gas and nitro engine power. Now, after a year of running those rules, racers are finding that they need to run hull sizes similar to the equivalent nitro engines from that article. What a surprise.
Lohring Miller

"Surprise"??? ... but TWO years ago... We (PSFEMBC) had already moved from 22" to 26" N2-Mono and N2-Sport Hydros... and from 24-26" to 30"+ (Sport 21 sized) P-Sport Hydros... And that was using all NiMH cells...

This isn't a revalation that JUST happened... or at least it doesn't come as a suprise to anyone here in the NW... If you want to see what's going to be big in 2009... you should come to one of our races in 2008...

 

[Hurricane]

And this type of bickering is why I didn't want ERCU to go NAMBA. Thank goodness we keep our own rules because this type of crap well kill new members in a heart beat. If there is this much going on, on this board just imagine what it is like at one of the races. Hope all have fun because you have just helped me to make sure not to go racing in any other electric classes. I thought the nitro and gas racers got carried away but they are real mild compared to this. Remember we are racing toy boats and should be about having fun. Good luck, enough is enough. To me this seems more of a ego thing going on than about the actual rules for the classes. I'm sure my point will not bother any body because I only race electric's in ERCU.

 

[Darin Jordan]

And this type of bickering is why I didn't want ERCU to go NAMBA.

It's not bickering.... it's an adult conversation where each group is trying to come to a complete understanding and trying to solve some problems...

If I'm not mistaken, ERCU has had it's issues as well... Which is partially why we have multiple 1/10th scale clubs here in the Seattle area running under different rules... We'd like to avoid this with our FE classes in NAMBA... So we talk about it and try to come to a resolution...

If you have something positive to contribute... please feel free to do so...

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I'm a bit confused here. A little disoriented.

Could somebody please point me towards the "bickering" section?

What's going on here is an exercise of freedom of speech and a debate of issues. This isn't a bicker session.

The only thing even remotely appearing like bickering, is that one or two folks have chosen to use the tactic of claiming that their voices are being stifled. That they are not being allowed to voice their opinions.

If you have to prop up your side of the argument by being a victim, that can't be a very strong case.

 

[Darin Jordan]

Just controlling propeller diameter will limit boat performance without any other restrictions. Sure, you can run more rpm, but there are limits to how well this will work. If costs are the issue, you can run claimer rules. That is, a racer must be willing to sell his motor and speed control to anyone for a set amount. You can specify the maximum current rating of the allowed speed control. You can specify motor size or weight.

Sure... these might be "possible ways to restrict performance and/or costs" , but would a Nitro or Gas boaters agree to ANY of these??? <_< And how would ANY of this promote "innovation"??? Seems like a VERY restrictive way to go about things....

A lot of things could be done... but again, you give NO details or specifics about how this would be implemented in practice... Only when you start doing that does the feasibility of each working (or not) come to light... You haven't suggested anything here that hasn't already been discussed and considered... and each time they are discussed, the same conclusions have been reached...

However, if you have some details on how you would implement these "possible ways to restrict performance and/or costs", Please share them with the rest of us so we can truely evaluate the feasibility of each... What would the prop sizes be? What mods would be allowed? What current rating would be allowed??? How would you tech this? What motor weight or size? How would you tech this?? What would motor costs be limited to?? How would you tech this?? Would not all of these types of questions need to be answered in some detail before any of this can be truely considered???

 

[Hurricane]

The reasons for several electric scale clubs is the same reason there is two 1/8th scale clubs. Different agenda's and personalities or ego's getting in the way. I was not into the Electric Scale racing when ERCU started. I do believe they where started by the same person and then some differences came up and they split and ERCU was started. I think there still is growing pain in both, Classic Thunder and ERCU. People drop out for different reasons I'm sure. The comments here do not appear to be much more than bickering (too me any way) I was racing 3.5 out board tunnels when they 1st came out, my 1st hull was the Klampon Kia, that should age me for sure. The years of bouncing the rules around trying to regulate them was a bit overwhelming. I feel that there seems to be a bit of personal attacks going on. If there isn't then it must just be me. Comments like it only concerns the FE guys is not really true as members of a national organization does it not concern us all. To some one new to racing this thread would scare them away from FE racing, again this is just the view of an out sider looking in. Did not mean to change the topic but just wanted to let all know that how an issue is discussed has positive or negative results and I felt this thread was going to the negative way.

 

[Ctonez]

I think the spirit of this thread is very positive. Especially when compared to other similar threads on various boards that really do frequently become mean-spirited spitting matches.

I feel I do represent the newer racer, as the coming season is only my sophomore year of racing.

Being an electric racer in the NW, I haven't had much exposure to Gas/Nitro boats except for a few fun runs. It is illuminating to hear lohring's (and others') take on the Namba rule discussion.

His perspective is different than mine, and causes me to re-evaluate why Length Limits make the most sense to me.

From my perspective, the main thing that intimidates most potential new FE boaters is cost, short-term and long-term. That's a big reason why these debates matter so much to so many...even those that choose to not participate, as it determines how our money will be spent for next season.

Say someone comes to you at a race and says..."how much does one of these cost?". I think we all can agree that $500 is an intimidating number to someone thinking about getting into FE boating for the first time...and that's the number I throw out when asked about my SV27...and that's generally cheap for an FE.

To me the crucial point for the length limits is that I can be reasonably assured that at least my current hull/hardware can be used in successive seasons and size-wise be capable of running in the same water as the other boats in its' class. If not, then someone gets a 43 inch Pmono and runs it against my little 27-incher and I either lose the race or fear losing my boat...not very fun for someone getting into FE boating, and it happened to me last year. We had a peek at the future without length limits, and it scared me.

The most popular classes in our club are SV27Spec, Pmono, and LSH. LSH and SV27Spec have rules that create parity between the boats and allows the less-experienced guys to run with the experienced guys and be competitive. Since Pmono is an open motor class, the boats have been getting bigger and faster throughout the season...at our winter mtg. I think we had 4-5 guys prepping to build 43"+ Pmonos for next season until we imposed length limits within the club. I was not one of those 4-5 guys.

I believe having no length limits on open motor classes will keep newer boaters from entering open motor classes because the size and expense goes to infinity without keeping the hull sizes in check. Is it just coincidence that SV27Spec and LSH are both the most popular and the least expensive classes?

I also agree with minimum hull lengths in place of minimum voltage... :unsure:

-Corey

 

[Hurricane]

The reason I like ERCU is the way the boats are set up and the rules they have adopted. It make almost every good set up guy and diver can have a chance. I don't know what the classes are in the electric world. But the spec classes should be the most popular. What mono class would us the 4s lipo battery? What would be a good set up? Better do this on a differant thread. One was to keep things more even is in hydro classes the use of a skid fin limits on size, depth and location. Is there any rules about props. Are custom made props legal? Just some thoughts.

 

[DPeterson]

Gentleman: A few - non bickering facts.

1. Those of you that keep referring to these boats as Toy Boats needs to rethink this. Last I checked Toy Boats don't go 60 - 70 mph. Not sure what everyone else is doing in the area of speeds but here in the Midwest we are setting up our N2/E1 monos to do 50-55 mph in oval trim and our P/E2 monos to do 60-65 mph in oval trim. P/E2 Hydro will be in the 65-70 mph area. And yes these will all be with the legal proposed length rules. Toy Boats these are not.

2. Again the length rules are being proposed for the OPEN classes. When you keep proposing power limiters (limiters that no one has as of yet proposed that will work) you are essentially creating more SPEC classes. Why do we need more SPEC classes? We have LSO, LSH, LS Tunnel, N1 Mono, and Super Vee. Do we need more? The length rules simply allow those of us that run OPEN classes to have some control in hull size so that we can run these hulls mulitple years.

3. And again this length rule proposal is for ELECTRIC racers. It has nothing to do with nitro/gas and in no way will have any effect on nitro/gas. I could care less about nitro/gas because I am an ELECTRIC racer and it is beyond me why a nitro/gas racer would concern himself with ELECRTIC rules.

4. I too traveled abroad a couple years back (German Saws). Just like Australia and here in the US there are some impressive racers and some good ideas. However this does not mean what they do is the best way and in fact I have been more impressed with many of our fellow US racers have been able to accomplish. From what I have seen (Germany) I would put some of our US racers and our proposed system of oval racing against any.

Cheers - Doug Peterson

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Lohring,

Although I can appreciate your input I have to wonder how much you really understand electric boating. I would never suggest to a nitro or gas boater how to set their boats up or run a race. Simple fact is I have no clue about what a fast nitro or gas boat is all about. Sure, I know the basics and have seen (and raced) with enough of them to have an understanding but I'm no expert.

Comparing a SV27 to an all out P mono would be like comparing a Nitro SV27 to to a high end .21 mono. You can't do it! Maybe you should try limiting the power of a CMB equipped boat so the SV could compete? Or maybe you should try running straight alcohol to limit performance. You could also limit the fuel tank size to what an SV would take to just finish a race, that way the guy with a hot engine that drank fuel couldn't finish a heat. Maybe you could spec an economical pull start OPS engine with a claimer rule? Or how about a stock muffler? That could keep noise down and save on a box of tune pipes that are needed to give an edge.

Sound ridiculous to you? The suggestions your making are no different to the ones above.

Paul.

 

[Flyguy55]

Good comments Paul

Loring , Eric , others . Eric , you know me pretty well ..

I have about 20 yrs of nitro experience. I started looking seriously at FE about a yr and a half ago.

My first look in IW was when Lipos were being considered . What surprised me was all the negative comments about Lipos from the Nitro Racers and Officers. Most of them had little or no Lipo experience. Not Safe , Fires , Explosions . on and on .

A yr latter , the only problems seem to be by people not following the guidelines. Most everyone is having good success with lipos. More fires from ESCs and nimhs .

Deja Vue all over again ?

BTW , I'm having a ball RC boat racing again . The politics isn't so much fun . Having raced Nitro and FE . Let the FE guys vote the rules they want to race and get back to racing

Dick Roberts

 

[lohring]

The 1/10 scale classes set a fixed hull size then pick a motor and battery combination that fits that general hull size. This avoids the problems with length limits alone. If you want to preserve hulls over a period of years, that seems like a good way to go. However, they have been changing the motor and battery combinations regularly to keep up with new developments. I think they should have more reliable and equal power plants as a result. The hull is the least expensive part of the race boat. In round numbers, the hull costs $300, the hardware is about the same, but the motor, speed control and battery costs around $1000. I know you can halve or double that with various component choices. But why would you regulate the least expensive part of the package, unless you have a huge amount of time in building and painting the hull, like scale?

I have been involved in high performance model boat development for years. Compared to gas boats, electrics are simple. You buy good components, and they work as advertised unless you push them to the limit of their ratings. A test program that takes a weekend on a gas boat can be done in an hour with an electric boat due to component reliability. We ran a model test program where the boat was too fast for the correct scale speed. Though this boat was capable of over 90 mph, we needed to see how the hull ran at 50 mph. We fixed that by running a smaller prop. That drops the current, and therefore the power and speed, without changing anything else. We also data logged and took on board video of various parts of the boat. Those things are very much more difficult on a gas boat.

Methods of restricting the power of internal combustion engines have been around for over 100 years. Electric racing is new, but the factors that produce power in electric motors have been understood for at least as long. We need to apply some of these principles to our rules. Other racing organizations are doing this as well. Research on the web will tell you what they are doing. You need to understand that power required for boats increases as the cube of speed. If you double the power, the speed will only increase by 1.25. Small differences in power won't make much difference in heat racing. You don't need perfect rules to give close racing.

Lohring Miller

 

[Hurricane]

Just to clear up why I call them toy boats other than they really are toy boats. If I'm not sitting or laying down in them and when it blows over and I'm not in it and can get up Monday morning and have the black and blue or broken bones or in the hospital is is a toy boat. Im not trying to down grade them in any way but just what they are and this is a hobby like RC Planes and Cars or what ever flips your trigger. Again I was trying to make a point of lets remember that it is a hobby and lets have fun racing our RC Boats.

 

[AlanN]

But why would you regulate the least expensive part of the package, unless you have a huge amount of time in building and painting the hull, like scale?
I have been involved in high performance model boat development for years. Compared to gas boats, electrics are simple. You buy good components, and they work as advertised unless you push them to the limit of their ratings. A test program that takes a weekend on a gas boat can be done in an hour with an electric boat due to component reliability.

Lohring Miller

Whoa, You are way out of touch with FE Lohring.

1st off I would rather spend $1000 worth of electronics (and this is not the case in every class) that will last me for years than buy an expensive hull that WILL succomb to the trash can eventually due to beating on it in race conditions.

Some racers have used the same motor and speed controller for years. Now that we have lipos the same can be held true for batts. How many years of running can you get out of a nitro motor? Not even a year or season from what I have been told by some very serious nitro guys. Let alone the rebuilds and maintenance. So I admit that the initial cost Fe is more but IMO cheaper in the long run.

2nd If you think setting up and FE is that easy it truely shows a misunderstanding of what tuning is. True we do not need to read the atmospherice pressure and such but finding the right prop,strut setting, cutting the rudder to the right length etc is tuning that EVERYONE does. Yes, we have reliablity but still the same tuning issues that you apparently are overlooking.

So if nitro guys had a great powerful motor in say a .90 range but it was very expensive.....you would propose a rule stating no-one could use it due to cost?

 

[Flyguy55]

Just to clear up why I call them toy boats other than they really are toy boats. If I'm not sitting or laying down in them and when it blows over and I'm not in it and can get up Monday morning and have the black and blue or broken bones or in the hospital is is a toy boat. Im not trying to down grade them in any way but just what they are and this is a hobby like RC Planes and Cars or what ever flips your trigger. Again I was trying to make a point of lets remember that it is a hobby and lets have fun racing our RC Boats.

hob·by 1 (hb)

n. pl. hob·bies

An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

sport (spôrt, sprt)

n.

1.

a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.

Building RC boats is probably a hobby, although its not always pleasureable

Racing RC boats is probably a Sport[/size]

 

[D. Newland]

...The hull is the least expensive part of the race boat. In round numbers, the hull costs $300, the hardware is about the same, but the motor, speed control and battery costs around $1000. I know you can halve or double that with various component choices. But why would you regulate the least expensive part of the package, unless you have a huge amount of time in building and painting the hull, like scale?...

Lohring,

I've heard this argument before, and I can't figure it out. When a hull is "upgraded" or "upsized", it also means new hardware, motor, ESC and cells. Maybe not everything every time, but a majority of the time most, if not all components within a hull are upgraded.

Just ask any FE racer that has been racing for the past 5 years or so and have them outline what their N-2 Mono or P Mono setups have looked like. It's not just a "bare hull" upgrade.

From 2003 to 2007, my history of N-2 mono and P Mono (bread/butter classes of NAMBA FE):

N-2 Mono: BBY OM 21, Lehner Basic 4200 and BK 70 amp controller

BBY Phantom 24, Nemesis 7L motor, Castle 80 controller, new hardware

BBY OM 26, Nemesis 7L motor (same), Castle 125 controller, same hardware

P Mono: BBY 26" Charger, Nemesis 10L motor, Castle 80 controller, new hardware

BBY Patriot 28" mono, 9XL on a gear drive, Castle 80 controller, new hardware

No Step 3 29", 8XL, Castle 125 Controller, new hardware

Titan 40, Lehner 2250, Castle 125 Controller, new hardware

And I'm known in the FE community as a conservative and budget-minded racer.

I'm sorry, Lohring, but you have a few FE conclusions that have been flat out wrong IMO. This, and the LiPo voltage post you made a few months ago that I corrected you on leads me to believe that you still have some homework to do when it comes to FE.

I'm willing to help in any way I can.

 

[deadwood318]

h34r: If NAMBA has let these scale guys into the club "MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOLES" the beggining of the end is now!!!!!

The 1/10 scale classes set a fixed hull size then pick a motor and battery combination that fits that general hull size. This avoids the problems with length limits alone. If you want to preserve hulls over a period of years, that seems like a good way to go. However, they have been changing the motor and battery combinations regularly to keep up with new developments. I think they should have more reliable and equal power plants as a result. The hull is the least expensive part of the race boat. In round numbers, the hull costs $300, the hardware is about the same, but the motor, speed control and battery costs around $1000. I know you can halve or double that with various component choices. But why would you regulate the least expensive part of the package, unless you have a huge amount of time in building and painting the hull, like scale?
I have been involved in high performance model boat development for years. Compared to gas boats, electrics are simple. You buy good components, and they work as advertised unless you push them to the limit of their ratings. A test program that takes a weekend on a gas boat can be done in an hour with an electric boat due to component reliability. We ran a model test program where the boat was too fast for the correct scale speed. Though this boat was capable of over 90 mph, we needed to see how the hull ran at 50 mph. We fixed that by running a smaller prop. That drops the current, and therefore the power and speed, without changing anything else. We also data logged and took on board video of various parts of the boat. Those things are very much more difficult on a gas boat.

Methods of restricting the power of internal combustion engines have been around for over 100 years. Electric racing is new, but the factors that produce power in electric motors have been understood for at least as long. We need to apply some of these principles to our rules. Other racing organizations are doing this as well. Research on the web will tell you what they are doing. You need to understand that power required for boats increases as the cube of speed. If you double the power, the speed will only increase by 1.25. Small differences in power won't make much difference in heat racing. You don't need perfect rules to give close racing.

Lohring Miller