Summary of NAMBA FE rule Proposals for 2008

[Darin Jordan]

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?

Lohring,

I'm sorry... but you are WAY out of touch with these comments... Have you actually BEEN involved with the 1/10th scale guys??? EITHER club??? ERCU only JUST changed from the Astro 25 motors LAST SEASON... And Classic Thunder is JUST NOW deciding to ALLOW Lipos... You want to know more??? Come over to my house... I'll WALK with you to Roger Newton's house and we can discuss things... I'm over there about 2-days a week chit-chatting about this stuff...

Comparing ANYTHING the 1/10th scale guys do to what we do is really not appropriate... They have completely different agendas, and doing much over 40mph in competition isn't one of them... What they do has NO relevance on what NAMBA FE does... Even NAMBA, RCU, or IMPBA 1/8th scales are more "competition" oriented than either of the two 1/10th scale clubs... Do you REALLY think that your NAMBA 1/8th scale Nitro guys would go for having you SPEC a particular motor for them??? <_<

Again... it's time for you to stop presuming you know what is going on in NAMBA FE and start paying attention to those of us with an active level of participation and a DEEP financial investment in this side of the hobby HERE in the USA or Canada.... We might just know a thing or two about what we are taling about...... and after all... it's OUR money you are messing with here... :angry:

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

h34r: If NAMBA has let these scale guys into the club "MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOLES" .......

Why are the bottoms of our feet in trouble?? :huh:

 

[DPeterson]

Hurricane - I think Flyguy's explanation of Hobby versus Sport is dead on. My approach to racing RC Boats has always been as a Sport. I take it pretty seriously. I spend big dollars. I take alot of time building each boat and take even more time testing and tuning at our local pond. I am currently building an all new fleet so that each of my race boats is built and tuned as perfectly as I can get them so that when I travel to races I feel I will be extremely competitive. Of course after the races and testing and tuning at the local pond the beer tastes very good also.

Lohring - You seem like an intelligent and very passionate boater. It does seem however that there is an electric knowledge or experience hump that you need to overcome. You are surrounded by club members that are very experienced in electrics and that also back the length rules. I think it would be most helpful for you to tap into your club members knowledge.

It would be very nice if the only cost issue was a 300.00 hull and a 1 hour tuning session. Like I said earlier I consider RC boat racing my sport and treat it as such. For me the hull is the easy part. After the hull nothing in or on my boats are stock. Everything is at least 90% custom. Motors, ESC's and all hardware. Lipo's, steering servo and receiver are the only stock items. The investment in my boats run from $2,000.00 - $2,500.00 each. On top of that add approximetly 60 hours of work to build each boat and then add in the many hours of testing and tuning at the local pond to get things right. I know I should have my head examined for the money and time spent on this but this is my thing. I am sure my approach is on one end of the spectrum and there are many other similar type approach's. At least in time spent building, testing and tuning.

Length limits will allow me and others to build, test, tune and then race this hull competitvely with other like size hulls for at least a 3 year period. I would rather spend less money and time to stay competitive. More avaliable funds then to travel to races.

Doug Peterson

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Lohring,

I'm really trying to understand your position but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. Is this a preconceived cost issue with you? I ask because you brought costs up.

Let me ask you this, how much would a top end .21 mono cost from a reputable builder? What top speeds could you expect in heat racing?

Now let me tell you what a top end P mono would cost you built out of my shop, 1200.00 not including batteries. I don't include batteries because they are our fuel but you can expect to pay between 250 to 600.00 depending on what you want. Yep, there is that much of a spread in suitable batteries now. Also you would have to amortize the cells over a few years life span. Unlike a gallon of nitro we have to buy all our fuel up front. That price buys you a 60mph top shelf machine that will flat out eat ANY .21 mono.

Also, your comments about electrics being easy? If they were so easy everybody should be able to run 140mph with an electric rigger, right? Just buy the right parts and toss them in a boat, easy.

And just so you understand a bit more about me than what you might have heard. I've set over 20 records using my heat racing oval boats in straight line, offshore and timed ovals. Boats built out of my shop for customers have set close to a dozen more records. I've been racing boats since the mid 80s, my first boats were a .21 tunnel and a .21 rigger.

Paul.

 

[lohring]

I think what I'm trying to get at is that length limits look like they will restrict electric model development at a time when it is critical and in rapid change. The best argument in favor of length limits is that it will reduce the cost of racing. I feel that this should be done in other ways, spec classes being the most successful to date. I believe that there should be classes with relatively unrestricted hulls where development can take place. All the examples I use come from what I observe. I am mostly trying to point out that there are many ways to achieve the same goals. As an example, an engine claimer rule is being voted on at the District 8 meeting to keep Sport 18 racers from buying $600 engines and dominating the class. This is a very straightforward way to control power plant costs.

Power is much simpler to measure in electric motors than internal combustion engines. There must be a good way to write rules around that.

Lohring Miller

 

[TRUCKPULL]

I feel that this should be done in other ways, spec classes being the most successful to date. I believe that there should be classes with relatively unrestricted hulls where development can take place.
Lohring Miller

Lohring

We have 4 Spec classes already; LSH Sport Hydro, LSO Offshore, M1 Mono, N1 Mono,

and also we have an other class that clubs are working on and running aready is a

Spec Tunnel class.

We have 5 unrestricted FE-4 classes; Mono, Offshore, Cat, Sport Hydro, Hydro(rigger)

These classes are all at the MAX on Power(10S) and length(60") for our NAMBA Insurance.

Larry

 

[Darin Jordan]

I think what I'm trying to get at is that length limits look like they will restrict electric model development at a time when it is critical and in rapid change.

OR... perhaps it won't...... Isn't it possible that it will help REFINE model development... people will have more well defined parameters to base their race equipment around... People will take the time to refine their equipment to get the most out of it... Hull designs will get more and more refined in an effort to make them work within the parameters of the classes... All of this as opposed to just getting a bigger hull...

Again, the bigger you go, the more EVERYTHING else about the boat is going to cost...

As an example of what I'm talking about with refinement...... just look at your tunnel boats... Put a L ynx up against a TS-2... Similiar sized boats... what sets them appart??? DESIGN! The former isn't any bigger... but it handles the power better and is a faster race boat because of it's REFINEMENT... it's design and the engineering behind it...

Another example was my N2-Sport hydro that you saw at the Nats last year... While I haven't perfected it yet, as you saw it is a radical design that starts pushing the boundries within the 27" Limit to get the most out of the package... It's REALLY fast when compared to more conventionally designed boats... An exercise in engineering, as opposed to just stepping up to a 30" Whiplash....

What kind of further "electric model development" do you believe is still going to take place??? Better electronics? Better batteries? Better motors? All of which generates MORE POWER, which, in turn, needs a more substantial hull to apply it to the water... Maybe it's time to STOP worrying about having the latest and greatest electronics, and start, instead, worry more about the BOAT... Put a system in place to where it doesn't make any sense to go chasing after that next best thing, and start focusing on making the power we have work; make it more reliable; make the runtimes longer; etc...

Power is much simpler to measure in electric motors than internal combustion engines. There must be a good way to write rules around that.

And yet... after discussing the matter for over 2-seasons... no one has put forth a reasonable and detailed disctiption of how this could be done... People keep suggesting that "there must be a good way to write rules around that"... but no detailed process has been put forth on this matter to consider...

They aren't as simple as you might think... there is a reason that a Neu makes more usable power than a Hacker or Nemesis/Fiego... or for that matter, why a Hacker makes more power than it's near twin the Fiego...

 

[Paul Pachmayer]

Hi Lohring,

I think what I'm trying to get at is that length limits look like they will restrict electric model development at a time when it is critical and in rapid change. The best argument in favor of length limits is that it will reduce the cost of racing.

Okay, I know understand where your coming from. I'll try and explain as best I can about the length limits.

The P mono example I gave you is a 33 inch boat, just under the max length of 34 inches. The boat runs very well but you certainly have to drive it or it will get away from you. Ideally running roughly 55mph the boat is an exceptional heat racer but it's nice to have a few mph in the bank when it can be used. Now for 1200 bucks (less if you build it yourself) you have a reasonably priced race boat compared to a nitro or gas boat of equal performance. Can you put more power in the boat? Of course, but as you have pointed out it will become ill handling and most likely DNF. So in a sense it's what your looking for in power control at a most basic level.

Now if we had no limits on hull size the price of that P mono has almost doubled not to mention completely eliminating a budget setup that someone "could" have had a chance with under the length limits. The motor and speed control combo alone would be in the 1300 dollar range and boat lengths of 40 inches plus would be the norm. I would venture a guess and say that at least 50% of the top FE racers in the country already have the equipment to do it and all it would take is 1 race with them to completely kill anyones desire to try and compete against that type of boat in the future.

Power is much simpler to measure in electric motors than internal combustion engines. There must be a good way to write rules around that.

Sure, measuring electric power is simple but controlling it is near impossible. Unlike an airplane that flies through air (which is fairly consistent in density) water is ever changing and the boat is rarely in a constant pull. The current spikes of a prop loading back up after going over a wake is huge, not to mention going through a corner were currents rise well above the average straight line. How do you compensate a guy who has a heavy boat that doesn't run as free and needs to draw more current just to maintain a competitive speed? How do you regulate motors? There's 2 pole, 4 pole, 8 pole not to mention inrunners and outrunners. A good 4 pole motor that weighs less than a comparable 2 pole simply has more torque and will pull a larger prop with less effort. How would you limit speed controls? Certainly not all are created equal, I'll take a 40/160 for my 4S boat over a 240 amp small board controller any day of the week. One costs 700.00 the other 255.00, how are you going to manage these types of things let alone what will be coming?

And don't get me wrong but spec classes and claim rules? Give me a break, where does the developement come from spec racing like that? Hey when you or whoever is feeding you information come up with the answers please let us know. Until that time you might consider doing a little more research for yourself to better understand what "actually" it takes to run a competitive FE boat.

Paul.

 

[Don Ferrette]

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.

I don't know who the "serious nitro guys" are you're talking to but they must be doing something unusual. Nitro motors last a long time properly cared for even if you twist the snot out of them. The 2 MAC84's I used to bust out the twin SAW record this past fall are over 4 years old and they were my heat race motors. New bearings at each season's end ($40 a motor) & unless you grenade one they'll go for quite a while. With that being said I have been following this thread to try to keep up on the FE stuff as it peaks my interest & I have thought often of building an FE scale. I got to be honest though, all this endless chatter going in circles makes my head spin, for now I'm glad I run just nitro & gas. I think I'll hold off on FE for a while till you guys sort all this stuff out............... :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

[Darin Jordan]

I got to be honest though, all this endless chatter going in circles makes my head spin, for now I'm glad I run just nitro & gas. I think I'll hold off on FE for a while till you guys sort all this stuff out............... :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

Don,

You are ABSOLUTELY right to feel that way... getting it sorted out is EXACTLY what we are hoping to do... I REALLY would like to see this be the last year for this kind of major change... One can hope... :blink:

However... if you are wanting to build an FE Scale... you should just do it... That's a lot more defined... Not many issues with FE there... 1/8th only... but maybe 1/10ths in the near future...

 

[K.R.Joye]

Its funny, similiar beckering is going on with the `Classic ThunderBoats' proposed Gas classes (lengths & power). Us FE guys are sitting back waiting for that class to sort out, may take a while. LOL

Those boats are going to be a riot FE powered!

I have been following this thread to try to keep up on the FE stuff as it peaks my interest & I have thought often of building an FE scale. I got to be honest though, all this endless chatter going in circles makes my head spin, for now I'm glad I run just nitro & gas. I think I'll hold off on FE for a while till you guys sort all this stuff out............... :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

A 3080 10S powered Thunderboat!!! Now THAT could be some fun!!!

 

[DPeterson]

It looks to me that the only items left to sort out is 1. Why are some non-electric racers concerning themselves with electric rules and 2. Why is a District Director (with a nitro background) not representing the wishes of the electric racers in his district.

Doug Peterson

 

[Andy Greene]

It looks to me that the only items left to sort out is 1. Why are some non-electric racers concerning themselves with electric rules and 2. Why is a District Director (with a nitro background) not representing the wishes of the electric racers in his district.
Doug Peterson

I had to read #1 twice just to make sure your REALLY typed that Doug. Ask yourself this- Where is the growth gonna come from ???

I've stayed far clear of this thread for good reason, BUT , all NAMBA members vote on the proposals Doug . Best not to sh-t in your own back yard so to speak.

Im done.

Andy

 

[lohring]

The battery, not the motor, is what mostly determines the available power output of an electric system. The motor and speed control only reduce the available power by their efficiencies. Naturally, better motors and speed controls cost more. Battery voltage is set fairly closely by cell type and number of cells. Battery current is set by cell size and available technology. There are several ways to measure cell size. The simplest is the manufacturers rated capacity. A slightly less accurate but easy to tech measure is cell weight. Cell volume has been used in the past. Cell technology has been mostly settled on since everyone got on the lipo bandwagon.

Any of these or similar factors can be put together in a rule set to regulate power available. These rules will determine available electric power more closely than the displacement rules do for internal combustion engines. Many other organizations follow this approach. The members discussing the subject on these boards do not want to use the above. Vote on the rule proposals. If the people who actually race electrics are happy with the rule set, that's the important factor.

Lohring Miller

 

[Tom w]

Instead of running cheap batteries on the ragged edge....we can run expensive batteries on the ragged edge....cool

My kids didn't want to go to college anyways.....

Tom W

 

[Bill-SOCAL]

I had to read #1 twice just to make sure your REALLY typed that Doug. Ask yourself this- Where is the growth gonna come from ???

As a sort of point of interest, I am very interested in Thunderboats and will very likely end up with one here very soon. There are a number of people in my District who run them and they look like a blast. They have a pending rules proposal and I would not dream of voting on it because I simply am not informed enough to make a informed decision. This despite the fact that I will likely run one soon.

I guess that I see an uninformed vote as worse than no vote at all. I trust the TB guys to know what they want and what will work for them. Hopefully the non-FE NAMBA members will trust the FE racers to the same degree.

 

[DPeterson]

Andy

If we are looking for growth from the nitro/gas crowd IMO we are doomed. I have been into electric boat racing for 7-8 years. We have held races that drew 30-35 racers. I have traveled to approximetly 10 races. I can't recall any electric racers that I know of that converted from nitro/gas. I am sure there are some but I bet it is a very small percentage. On the other hand I have seen many new electric racers that converted from RC cars and or RC Planes.

Furthermore I know of 25-30 electric racers that are waiting to become NAMBA members when the proper rules are in place so that there will be some parity with hulls for a few years in a row.

I stand by my posts until facts suggest I should think otherwise.

Good Day - Doug Peterson

 

[Darin Jordan]

Many other organizations follow this approach.

"Many"??? Name them... and give the TECHNICAL DETAILS of their rules and how they are implemented...

The members discussing the subject on these boards do not want to use the above.

That's pretty presumptuous of you to say... Without anyone putting forth a plan with the details... how would you expect us to know if we want to use the "above" or not???

But for some reason, after repeated requests in over two years of discussing this, no one seems to be able to provide that information... and those ideas that have been put out there haven't been able to stand up to scrutiny... In other words... they were pretty much deemed to not be feasible by most...

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

There are several ways to measure cell size. The simplest is the manufacturers rated capacity.

And, we'll be back resetting the limits, ad nauseum. The technology is constantly evolving and so will the limits will constantly be evolving. Unless you want to freeze development.

A slightly less accurate but easy to tech measure is cell weight.

Easy to tech? Not hardly. Variations between scales alone would make this one a nightmare. Does the scale in Wisconsin read the same as the scale in Los Angeles? Does the scale in Phoenix at 88 degrees read the same as the scale in Cleveland, when those loons are running in 45 degree weather? Not likely. Short of an organization-wide calibration program and environmentally controlled facilities to make the readings in, this would be a farce.

Any of these or similar factors can be put together in a rule set to regulate power available. These rules will determine available electric power more closely than the displacement rules do for internal combustion engines. Many other organizations follow this approach. The members discussing the subject on these boards do not want to use the above. Vote on the rule proposals. If the people who actually race electrics are happy with the rule set, that's the important factor.

There is the key right there. The members discussing the subject on these boards ARE the people who actually race electrics!