Summary of NAMBA FE rule Proposals for 2008

[Capt Ron]

the FAI, NAVIGA, and the AMPBA are all restricting power...

thier rules have been posted and can easily be looked up!

those organizations might find it interesting that thier rules are flawed, they have no facts or data to back up thier reasoning and they are doomed to failure...

vote already...

Ron

 

[Flyguy55]

. 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

Thank You Loring

But only partical true

. There has only been one proposal to consider voting on. The rest , including yours are only ideas of what might work . Never a proposal .

The discissions on this thread and others on this fourm and several others threads on other fourms for many many months have been trying to accomplish this very thing.

To find out if the majority of " the people who actually race electrics " want to race with length limits .The only poll results I know of show we do.

If there is another proposal boaters who " actually race Electrics " could choose.

If " NAMBA Members " who don't race electrics vote also , I guess we'll never know .

Dick Roberts

 

[Andy Greene]

Dick your last statement interests me -

"If " NAMBA Members " who don't race electrics vote also , I guess we'll never know "

This is a general question to all involved here, is it your contention that - "boaters who " actually race Electrics " - your words-

are the only ones that should vote on these issue's ?? Or even be concerned with them?

Andy

 

[Ken Haines]

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. Lohring Miller

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. Lohring Miller

Hi Lohring,

I'm not trying to pile on, but from reading your posts I think you may have some mis-understandings of FE power. While it is true if a given boat set-up is changed to a smaller prop it will go slower and draw less current. That same boat can have a motor changed to a higher KV (RPM/volt) and it will draw higher current and go faster. If there was a prop maximum rule made on a certain class everyone would eventually move to higher KV for that class. To a very large degree this does work. Remember at the SV race at the Nat's everyone had the same motor. I do not think you are advocating all the same motors. If you are which other motor manufactures do we essentially put out of the FE business.

You are correct that the batteries are the limit for total potential safe power. Any power source can be drawn further or harder than it can safely handle. We can draw for example 150 amps constant out of a battery rated at 100 amps. It won't last very long, but racers will do what is neccesary to have the edge. This is why it is nearly impossible to regulate power by using the components of the power train. This hull limit thing is just such a simple premise I do not understand the minority group that is resistant to it. If I can only run my hull at lets say 55 MPH max in oval trim without it becoming unstable, why next year with some other advance in available power would I need to upgrade it past the the power I need to run at top performance. There definetely will be hull improvements and handling tricks taken advantage of to go faster, but all hulls have a maximum speed. The bigger they are the faster they can go. Also the bigger they are the more they cost. This in our club's opinion this the exact reason we feel the new rule proposal is moving in the right direction. Its also our opinion that there needs to be ample amount of spec classes; SV 27, OPC 27, LSH etc. We also need to have a 1/10th scale P sport-hydro class established at the 37-38" lengths that some clubs currently race. This would also address Eddie Hanson's valid discussions on this topic.

Just my 2 cents, Take care

Ken

 

[Darin Jordan]

the FAI, NAVIGA, and the AMPBA are all restricting power...
thier rules have been posted and can easily be looked up!

OK... I don't read German very well... but I looked through the NAVIGA site, and I don't see anything there regarding regulation of power... Would someone please detail the sections being referred to here? The last word I recall hearing from Joerg on this matter was that NAVIGA wasn't even going to allow Lipos until MAYBE 2009... The power specs I could find list most motors as "frei"... (Here is where I was looking: http://www.naviga.org/M_Beschreibung.htm ) I can't seem to find any sections describing allowed battery chemistries... but then again, I don't read German so I may have overlooked it... If there are any experts here on NAVIGA rules, please educate us on the details of how you are regulating power with Lipos and modern technology in sprint type racing...

AMPBA.. (The Australian Model Power Boating Association)... they are ONLY using weight per "series cell" for their "Power Regulation"... That's it... Otherwise their rules look similiar to ours, except they run timed races rather than sprint... 150g/"series cell" is the lipo spec they use.... We've already gone over the pros and conns of this method, so no need to regurgitate that here... It is what it is... one way of doing things... not better, not worse... just a different approach with benefits and also serious pitfalls... Take it for what it is...

FAI... Well... first off... they are AIRPLANES... Not sure how a direct comparison can be done with this, but let's see... Each class is has maximum or minimum weights listed for that particular class of plane, and many have wing area and fusalage size limitations... F5B - Electric Powered Motor Gliders, for example.... 1000g min w/o battery... 26.66 dm^2 minimum surface area... no paralleling allowed... 600g max pack weight... 1750 Watt-Min "electronic limiter that stops the motor"... Now... F5D (Electric Pylon Racing AirCraft) uses a minimum weight of 1000g and a maximum wing loading spec of 65 g/dm^2... Then they limit the Lipo packs again by weight... 275g max including "soldering, insulation, cables and connectors". THEN, the spec that:

[QUOTE='FAI SC4_Vol_F5_Electric_08.pdf]"The maximum average power within a 60 second period shall be 800W." "Electric power has to be logged during flight. The logging device has to be placed in the electric circuit between the battery and the motor controller. The pilot has to privde techical equipment to analyse the log with a resolution of minimum 10@ and minimum of 2 logs per second (log frequency >= 2Hz)."
The electric power log has to be checked by an official. The average power analysis may be

taken arbitrarily at any flight time in the log. Any 60 sec period in the log has to be within the

limit. Exceeding the electric power limit by 5,0% is scored as one infringement (cut); exceeding

by more than 5,0% means disqualification from that heat.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds complex and like a lot of extra equipment to have to carry onboard... on board EACH boat... But I suppose that could work as well... Someone would have to figure out the specs that would be applicable to each boat class... That might be a little daunting...

So... Yes... these other organizations are taking steps to limit the available power... Are they better or worse?? It's a matter of opinion... Each has it's benefits and it's pitfalls... NONE of them really appear to allow for "innovation" or "development"... any more than what we've proposed... In fact, it would appear that these other methods would funnel the technology down to where there would be KEY components, manufacturers, and brands of equipment that would be preferred over all others and those with that equipment would be at a clear advantage... which sounds expensive to me...

BUT... lay out a plan for FE in NAMBA based on any of these ideas and let's talk about it if you think you have a better way... or if you think other countries/organizations have a better way...

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Sounds complex

That is an understatement.

Wouldn't it be fun to have R/C boat racing operating like the ABRA does now?

Them N2 Violations just make the racing so exciting!

A half hour after the heat finishes, you find out the boat that finished first actually was disqualified. Excitement like that will pull in the racers! :lol:

 

[SReesor]

There are issues with limiters beyond what many might think, and if you read through this thread, all is not all roses within this organization with respect to watt limiters.

Not even considering one desn't exist that will work in a boat, the accuracy, calibration and other issues are discussed in this thread over on RCGroups:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=780060

 

[Flyguy55]

Andy's Quote "Dick your last statement interests me -

"If " NAMBA Members " who don't race electrics vote also , I guess we'll never know "

This is a general question to all involved here, is it your contention that - "boaters who " actually race Electrics " - your words-

are the only ones that should vote on these issue's ?? Or even be concerned with them?

Andy

Of course any one can be concerned about any class . And any NAMBA member can vote on any rule.

I don't believe most FE racers feel comfortable voting on Gas or Nitro rules if they are nor racing Gas or Nitro. I raced nitro for 20 + yrs , but don't plan to because I took about 15 yrs off.

I and some others think that NAMBA would be better off if FE and Gas - Nitro was a separate divisions of NAMBA for voting on each divisions Racing rules .Only those interested and knowledgeable and signed on to that division would be eligible to vote on proposals in a division

An Example . APBA has many divisions , classes of full size boat racing. Everything from Electric powered , bathtubs , to Unlimited. ( I believe Unlimited and some Offshore class may have split off from APBA now because of interference )

I raced Inboard and OPC tunnels in the 70s. I won a couple National Championships in OPC Tunnel boats in what are not called Champ Boats.

For a couple years I was an OPC commissioner , Like the OPC BOD .

I could vote on OPC rules and Inboard rules, National officers , General Racing and Safety Rules. I wasn't allowed to vote on the Unlimited Racing Rules. I didn't want too , I wasn't knowledgeable.

If I had interest in Stock or Pro Outboards , or inboard division , or offshore , I could have signed on to those divisions , and voted also.

Later I was an officer in the APBA RC division. I could vote on RC Rules. I also signed on to the inboard class , and was voted in as a Dist chairman over all divisions in my District.

Would it be good for NAMBA ? It should be considered .

I don't expect it to happen in my life time.

Andy's Question " is it your contention that - "boaters who " actually race Electrics " - your words-

are the only ones that should vote on these issue's ?? Or even be concerned with them? "

Its not my contention . But is there anyway else to find out ?

Dick Roberts

 

[Andy Greene]

Well said Dick, You guys have your vote and rules and hopefully all is best for the future of F/E- From here on out I will watch from the sidelines with a tight lip and wish the F/E guys all the best. Good Luck...

Andy

 

[raptor347]

OK, I've recovered enough from surgery to sit in front of the computer and put in my .02

I was involved with writing the new proposal and I absolutely support it. But let's ignore my possition on that for a couple minutes.

I don't know how many FE racers have experience with FAI events. I came to FE from racing F5D with pretty good success. Let's just say that FAI events are a very different game from what we play. Tech inspection for FE is an after thought, tech inspection at the F5 worlds takes a full day prior to the event. Having been there, I don't think we want/need that level of complexity.

Battery limits are an option, they are running down under with pack weight limits. That leaves hull, motor, esc and prop as the variables. Now we need to look for efficiency. Since there are few who scratch build anymore we'll assume a production hull. You buy the best of everything. There's roughly 10-15% efficiency between the high and low end motors/escs (props are a whole other topic), that's better than half a lap advantage if you can put it to the water. Oops- forgot about the 30C 5350mah cells that just came out and make weight, there's another 6.5% if I go buy a new pack. Battery O' the month and motor efficiency wars. If it isn't happening yet, the class' haven't matured.

Same result for energy limiters. It happens in FAI every round, the battle for a fraction of a percent of extra efficiency to put the available power to the prop. For that matter, if pack weight is the answer, why are they looking at energy limiters for FAI competition in the first place. You should also note that the limiters are mandated, but not supplied. It's up to the competitors to comply with the new requirement and they don't seem to agree on the best way to implement the new requirements. It's certainly not a simple, problem free solution.

I couldn't find anything about LiPo or limiters on the NAVIGA site.

Back to the proposal.

Last season we pretty much found that there was a limit to how much power you could utilize in a given size hull. The guys who pushed harder generally didn't finish races and this was with 1/2-5/8 mile races. Once you take the race out to a mile, water conditions toward the end of the race absolutely forced you to tune the setup to the hulls capabilities. Think of Offshore conditions for every heat. Race water is a great equalizer.

The equipment was dead reliable. I've got packs that have 2 seasons on them now and still run as hard as they did when new. It was a nice change when battery maintinence consists of replacing worn out connectors. Guys were competetive with budget power systems, I even raced a motor that cost less than $250 (broke my own record with it too). We couldn't use all the power available, so the entire system was running significantly lower than maxed out. Essentially tou tune to the hulls limits, not the power system.

What it comes down to is:

If you like the proposal - vote yes

If you don't like it - vote no

If you don't understand it - don't vote until you do

If you have a better idea:

-Test it

-Write it up

-Jump through the hoops to get it proposed

-See what the majority says

Note to Gas/Nitro guys. If you feel you can make an informed decision and you are concerned for the future of FE, please do vote. There are only 110-120 FE racers out of ~1200 active NAMBA members, so as a group you could very easily push an outcome one way or the other. One of the major concerns among the FE racers is that we really don't have control of our own fate. My feeling is the best thing we can do is educate anyone who's interested and offer our opinions. If you feel you should vote on the FE proposal, please do. But please don't vote blindly. That's all I can ask, thanks for the time.

 

[JfromJAGs]

Naviga has'nt decided on LiPo or LiFePO4 yet. There will be a decission at the worlds in Warsaw, Poland this summer. Germany (Nauticus) will propose LiPo rules as follows, other countries may propose different rules.

Hydro1/Mono1/Eco (7cell classes): LiPo, 2s1p, 280g max.

Hydro2/Mono2 (12cell classes): LiPo, 4s1p, 560g max.

Hydro3/Mono2 (20cell classes): LiPo, 6s1p, 840g max.

There will be test and demonstration classes at the german championship races in the 2s classes, but the championship 2008/2009 (and thus qualification for the 2010 worlds) will be run with NiMH's - unless the decission at the worlds 2008 is pro LiPo. Then whatever is decided there will be used in 2009 at the national level too.

See http://forum.smbc-moers.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=664 for details, see 4. "Einsatz von LiPo".

This is the protocoll of the meeting of the technical commission of the german Nauticus.

Besides the 2 championship races/year there are quite some more cup races in 2008 in Germany.

1. Eco-IDC (that's what I organize with a friend for that last 10 years, 8-12 races/year, mainly Eco and limited classes) and

2. LiPo-Master (a new series for mono and hydro races, 5-8 races/year).

3. The swiss Eco cup decided to allow LiPo in 2008, too.

IDC and LiPo-Masters both decided to allow LiPo (and LiFePO4 cells in some classes) in parallel to 7/12 NiMH's in 2008. We will only have 2s1p and 4s1p classes. Weight and cell limits are similar to the proposal above (we did talk before we made the rules), but IDC and LiPo-Masters will allow 3s2p and 5s2p of A123, 2300mAh in some classes too. Runtimes are 5min for Hydro, 6min for Mono and Eco, 8min for Eco standard (05 motors).

Safty rules are like follows:

1. LiPo batteries need to be operated in a 4.23V-3.30V idle voltage window. Higher or lower voltages and you are out. Cell voltage will be checked if neccessary, from occasionally at friendly races to every boat at a final race. Window = 3,65V - 2,60V for A123. This is done to ensure long cycle life, to avoid puffed cells and to avoid overcharge - which would allow 10-20% more energy output at a highly reduced cycle life.

2. Racers MUST use balancers and LiPo capable chargers to charge Li cells. It is very recommended to use a single cell discharge supervision device (like Cellshield or LiPoDimatic) to guarantee cells are operated in the recommended voltage window. But it's up to the racers to watch for the window, however he does it.

3. It is recommended to transport LiPo cells in appropriate safty cases, like LiPoSack or other LiPo containers.

These rules will allow us to continue to race our existing NiMH boats and known race formats. Power will be slighty higher and total boat weight will be lower, thus speeds will slightly increase, but basically it's very simialar to what we did so far. We will have a given amount of power and then you decide what size of boat you will run to get best performance and handling.

We have talked about a power limiter too, we saw the benefits of it (really equal power to everyone), but we don't believe we should rely on this none existing technology for 2008. Besided that, it will be quite difficult to achieve the accuracy we would like to see (<1% error) with a device in the 50-80 Euro range. But we watch the FAI closely.

We are able to have such rules, because our runtimes are rather high: 5-6min. Thus the C rates are only about 10. This does'nt harm the cells much and we are very safe with the 4.23V-3.30V window, safty and long cylce life.

A weight limit is a very strict limit on energy too. Looking at LiPo cell development in the last 2 years, we are still at 5000mAh for a 120g LiPo cell. The above rules will allow up to 130g/cell net weight, so I expect 5500-5600mAh this year for a 130g/cell. Higher C rate development won't affect us much as the existing cells, either 20C, 25C or 30C don't affect the voltage much at "only" 10C avg. discharge.

You may think these boats are slow at "only" 50A average, but they reach speed of up to 60mph for a 2s1p hydro and probably in the 70mph+ range for a 4s1p hydro. Mono and Eco boats are slower, but still pretty quick. We do probably run more sophisticated and more advanced designs and setups compared the "give me power" thinking - but this is the way how we like to do things in Europe.

BTW, we keep the existing cources, about 1/16 mile for oval and the 30m triangle for eco, because they just fit into most of the rather small lakes we got here.

Joerg

Sources:

Eco-IDC: http://www.eco-idc.de/eco-news/regel-2008.html

LiPo-Masters: http://rc-powerboats.homepage.t-online.de/10585.html

SEC-Swiss Eco Cup: http://home.datacomm.ch/pmzwygart/bauvorschriften.htm

 

[raptor347]

Joerg,

Good info. That's a very different racing format than we run here, even prior to the introduction of LiPo.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

You may think these boats are slow at "only" 50A average, but they reach speed of up to 60mph for a 2s1p hydro and probably in the 70mph+ range for a 4s1p hydro.
BTW, we keep the existing cources, about 1/16 mile for oval.

Joerg

70MPH on a 1/16th mile OVAL coarse with a 4S Rigger???????????

(1/16th mile OVAL) - Coarse sizes please straitaway length?? width of the oval or Rad. of the turn.

More info on this please. Boat length, - Motor, - KV. - Prop, - ETC. ??

Larry

 

[JfromJAGs]

One of the 60mph setups I know is Arne's and Gunnar's hydro 1. It runs on a 2s1p last years 20C TP5000 cells, an old Hacker B50L/5 and our standard Schulze 149 controller. Prop is either a modified X438 or modified P215. I expect a little bit more with 130g, 5500mAh cells, but lift needs to be reduced first. The boat was originally build for 7 NiMH's. See: http://rc-powerboats.homepage.t-online.de/...ags_hydro_a.jpg

Around 70mph on 4s1p is Arne's new Lindenau Bathlet. Same last years TP5000 cells, same Schulze 149 controller (watercooled here). Motor is a bit oversized, but we got some of them left from the 2 motor S/T-Hydro SAW boat: LMT 1950/5. Prop, I think he runs a modified X442. I will need to make a similar Prather too, as this seamed to work better on the small hydro. This boat has'nt raced yet, but Arne is really looking forward to the first race in April. See: http://213.239.214.134/lindenau/cms/cms/up...utive_mk_II.jpg

The Naviga oval got slightly longer straights (60m), but tighter turns(15m). The total length is 167.12m, while 1/16 would be 160.9m. See: http://www.nauticus-sport.de/images/Kursoval.jpg

Allthough boats and basic rules look similar, these races are very different to NAMBA races. Hydro's run 23-27 laps in 5min, mono's 24-30 laps in 6min. Eco's run 40-45 laps in 6min around the 30m triangle, probably a few more on LiPo. There's a lot of overtaking and tactics involved. You got usually 4 heat's on a race weekend, the best 2 count, either as final result or as qualification for a final. Usually boat's run full speed on the straight, but are throttled down for effective turns and also on the straights in traffic or under rough water conditions. 4s1p in a hydro seams to be the maximum what the small cource can take. Even 20 cell hydro's did'nt run more laps than the 12 cell boats when we still ran NiMH's, this won't change with LiPo's. Mono's are a bit different, here 20 cell boats run the most laps.

From the battery point a view the main difference is that we run our boats within safe battery limits: average C rates of only 10-12 (=5-6min races). The US 1-2min races would need cells with a C rate of 30C(2min) to even 60C(1min) continous. That's what makes you looking for other limiting factors than power itself.

Joerg

 

[Darin Jordan]

The Naviga oval got slightly longer straights (60m), but tighter turns(15m). The total length is 167.12m, while 1/16 would be 160.9m. See: <a href="http://www.nauticus-sport.de/images/Kursoval.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.nauticus-sport.de/images/Kursoval.jpg</a>

Joerg...

How is 1/16th mile 160.9m??? Unless I'm doing my math wrong... .10 miles (1/10th mile) is 160.9344m (528ft)... So 167.12m (548.294ft) is actually 0.1038436 miles... or a little larger than 1/10th... Would a 1/16th mile oval not actually only be 100.584m (330ft) ??? What am I missing here??? (in regards to this particular calculation... )

As for race format... I like our race format... similiar to what Nitro has done for years... it works for us... Stretching the races to 1-mile will bring even more parity with Nitro... and more fun for FE...

 

[DPeterson]

Interesting information Joerg.

Do you have any other performance examples besides Outriggers? Here in the states Outriggers seems to be pretty low on everyones priority list. Do you have any examples of Mono's, Sport Hydro's and Cats?

It is also interesting to note that NIMHS are still the battery of choice on your side of the pond. I don't mean to disrespect but it seems as though you fellows are about 2-3 years behind. Why is this? I can attest that once you all switch to Lipo's you will wonder what took you so long.

Also it still seems most are confused about our rules and proposed rules. We don't run just one style of racing. We have SPEC classes (LSH, LSO, M1 Mono, N1 Mono, LS Tunnel etc.). We have OPEN classes (N2/E1, P/E2, Q/E3, S,T/E4). For these varying classes we have 1/2 mile and 1 mile OVAL SPRINTS. We also have 4 minute OFFSHORE races.

So your's and other's ideas of limiting battery weight can not be applied universally. We can apply it to our SPEC classes. For our OFFSHORE classes we put in just enough Mah to get the job done. No need to limit. More Mah is just more weight. Our OPEN classes exist for those of us that wish to put in as much power into a given hull size as we can get. This is what turns us on.

IMO, the length limit for OPEN classes has more to do with keeping LIKE SIZE hulls racing each other and keeping these hulls around a few years than what it has to do with limiting power.

Cheers - Doug Peterson

 

[JfromJAGs]

How is 1/16th mile 160.9m??? Unless I'm doing my math wrong... .

Darin, unsharpen your pencil. 1/16 was obviously a typo, just too many 6 in a row. You run a 1/10 mile oval, which is just a bit shorter than the Naviga oval. That was the message.

As for race format... I like our race format... similiar to what Nitro has done for years... it works for us... Stretching the races to 1-mile will bring even more parity with Nitro... and more fun for FE...

I have to disagree. 5 laps on a 1/5 mile oval with a 4s2p rigger should not take much over 70s. All 1 mile nitro records are in the 60's and we agree that electrics are even faster now. Even mono's should be in the 90s range. That said, runtimes are still to low to be safe for any existing battery. 5-6min runtime is a totally different story compared to that.

Joerg

 

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, unsharpen your pencil. 1/16 was obviously a typo, just too many 6 in a row. You run a 1/10 mile oval, which is just a bit shorter than the Naviga oval. That was the message.

Joerg,

You typed 1/16th in TWO separate posts... Sorry if I didn't read between the lines... That's why I asked you to confirm... Once is a typo... twice is... well... it deserves clarification...

 

[JfromJAGs]

Do you have any other performance examples besides Outriggers? Here in the states Outriggers seems to be pretty low on everyones priority list. Do you have any examples of Mono's, Sport Hydro's and Cats?

Sport Hydro's and Cat's are only run in the limited 700 size motor classes in Germany. 14 cells before, now 4s1p LiPo or 5s2p LiFePO4. Around 40mph, maybe 45mph.

Mono's range from around 40-45mph (7 cells/2s1p) probably up to expected 55-60mph (20cells), but I don't know exactly and these are mostly NiMH numbers.

Looking at the last NAMBA nationals I noticed that almost nobody ran riggers anymore. Which is something I don't understand, because if you want to go fast, then a rigger is your best choise.

It is also interesting to note that NIMHS are still the battery of choice on your side of the pond. I don't mean to disrespect but it seems as though you fellows are about 2-3 years behind. Why is this? I can attest that once you all switch to Lipo's you will wonder what took you so long.

Well, we will allow LiPo's in competition this year, which is one year later than in the US and Australia, equal with FAI and quite some years before RC cars. A year of good thoughs of what to do with rules, a year of collecting information and test data. I think the time is just right. What NAMBA and IMPBA did last year was too early - most people have'nt been prepared and it hit them pretty hard. The 2p rules meant a lot of investment too - if you wanted to compete, you needed to begin from scratch: new everything except the radio. Again, 2008 is just right, especially after last year's NiMH drama - it was kind of predictable, but nobody expected it to be that bad. Anway, we get a lot of support in Germany and Europe now. Everybody is looking forward to the new technology and the change went really smooth compared to the US. Naviga is a different story though. They are a few years behind, but that's because the are a lot of countries involved, former Soviet Union, quite some in Europe and also China. You won't believe it, but China officials are pretty much blocking LiPo's in Naviga.

Also it still seems most are confused about our rules and proposed rules. We don't run just one style of racing. We have SPEC classes (LSH, LSO, M1 Mono, N1 Mono, LS Tunnel etc.). We have OPEN classes (N2/E1, P/E2, Q/E3, S,T/E4). For these varying classes we have 1/2 mile and 1 mile OVAL SPRINTS. We also have 4 minute OFFSHORE races.

Doug, we do run many styles too. 3 open hydro classes, 3 open mono classes, 2 limited hydro classes, 2 limited mono classes, 2(3) eco classes, FSR-E, F1 (high speed triangle), F3 (high speed skill class). See: http://www.naviga.org/M_Beschreibung.htm which does not include the national limited classes and the new mini classes (mono, hydro and eco). We do race SAW's too, but this is not an official NAVIGA class. I know pretty exactly what you guys run and I also do know what was and is proposed. BTW, we met in Rahm at the German SAWs. You used to race with Klaus Mueller.

So your's and other's ideas of limiting battery weight can not be applied universally.

This is exactly what I said. It only works if the runtimes are high enough to ensure safe battery usage. It does not work on it's own for runtime below 3-4min (15-20C). It works again for SAWs though. You may want to dig up an article I posted here and on RR about batteries in general. About a year ago.

IMO, the length limit for OPEN classes has more to do with keeping LIKE SIZE hulls racing each other and keeping these hulls around a few years than what it has to do with limiting power.

I understand this as the American style of racing, throw a lot of power at something and race with it. Don't get me wrong, I accept this now. Do whatever you want. Now, after I stopped my interest in NAMBA SAWs, because these rules also effect SAWs. Problem is, with the little sence the new size based rules make to me for oval, they even make much less sence for SAWs. At least for the way FE SAWs used to be raced and how I like(d) them.

I just reply here because someone threw my name in about what NAVIGA and what Europe does.

Joerg

 

[DPeterson]

Joerg

BTW, we met in Rahm at the German SAWs. You used to race with Klaus Mueller.

Yah, still do. Klaus and I have been getting together once a week to build boats. Klaus has a beautiful new rigger. He his also building a P/E2 Sport Hydro and a P/E2 Mono. Me, I have too many new boats to mention. My German Saw trip was a fantastic experience. Had a great time and I remember meeting you. Hope to go back with Klaus some day. Mostly for the Beer. Not really into Saw as much as I am into oval.

As for the 1P - 2P - length limit - etc, etc. I think time will tell and it may be the only way that the truth will be known. I was certainly not in favor of the 2P thing early on but I understand why it started off this way and I don't blame anyone for the route this has taken. If I understand correctly, the pioners that experimented with lipo's started out with 2P so as to not destroy the cells. Can't blame them for this.

Maybe we in the US did adopt 10,000 Mah in haste. Doesn't really matter. Most of us are finding that our boats are faster with 5,000 Mah than we are with 10,000 Mah. Of course our Mah descision depends on race distance. Everything is shaking out in the laundry.

There is no point for anyone to continue with point - counterpoint discussions. The rule proposal is submitted and the majority will now decide. Again I side with length limits. Not for the power limiter but for the scale appearance of racing like size boats around the oval.

As for the length limits effecting SAWS. Good question. There are many things in NAMBA in my opinion that needs addressing. For some reason this small time hobby/sport needs an act from Congress to get something changed.

Doug Peterson