The FE Sport Scale Rule Change Proposal

[drobie]

it's just nice to have similar sized boats running together. That's one of the things I don't like about running Q & S together.  Not because of any advantage that one has over the other it's just goofey looking on the water.

91249[/snapback]

​

There's a reason for you Kevin.

Another one is that some newcomers looking to buy a boat want the guidance that spec'ing length provides.

I'd ask you. If dictating size is a moot point, then why waste so much energy fighting it?

From the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

If size is moot for half of us, then we default to min and maxes for those that feel it's important.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Hey Kevin,
This it?

no reference to scale

no length requirements

no reference to intent

no reference to decorations (to subjective)

no exceptions for existing hulls (behind smooching)

no detail requirements (might get scratched)

no efforts to make transition from nitro easy

This one

"The boat may be purchased ready built, modified from an existing hull, or scratch built from any suitable material generally used in model boat construction."

and this one

"Each boat must have a sponsor’s name or logo affixed to the hull; this sponsor may be of the builder’s choice. Each boat will also display race numbers of the driver’s choice affixed to each side of the hull."

are right out of the existing set of rules under which we are running now.  You want rid of those too?

Did I miss any?  Toss them on here so we can stop arguing and move on.

How about O,P,LSH,Q&S Not Rigger/cat/Tunnel Class?

The existing rules are stupid as are the authors of the latest proposals.  We got all that.  Are there any restrictions you would be in favor of?  Can we move on to what WOULD be a good rule set?

91255[/snapback]

​

Terry,

[no efforts to make transition from nitro easy)

That's too funny!

Where are all of those nitro converts? Don't hold your breath waiting for 'em!

They see a bunch of people with their heads so far up their rears that they demand several dozen racers (or more) extend the front (or rear) of their boat 1/8", rather than change one word in a set of rules. Absolutely asinine!

All of that, and you still cannot give one good, logical reason to have minimum length rules in Sport hydro. That's sad.

KW

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

. That's one of the things I don't like about running Q & S together.  Not because of any advantage that one has over the other it's just goofey looking on the water.

91249[/snapback]

​

There's a reason for you Kevin.

Another one is that some newcomers looking to buy a boat want the guidance that spec'ing length provides.

I'd ask you. If dictating size is a moot point, then why waste so much energy fighting it?

From the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

If size is moot for half of us, then we default to min and maxes for those that feel it's important.

91265[/snapback]

​

No Doug,

I said a logical reason. Not an emotional reason (it's just nice to have similar sized boats running together). Besides, even without minimum length rules, reality would bring about size equality.

[i'd ask you. If dictating size is a moot point, then why waste so much energy fighting it?]

I am just tired of seeing people (H & M Bud owners in this), getting sodomized over 1/8". Change 24 to 23 and dozens of people don't have to modify perfectly good boats. But, hey. That's just too darned simple for a bunch of policy wonks!

Some people just cannot operate outside their box. They have to have rules for everything, in writing.

There's even a rule in there to tell everyone that they MAY either buy their boat OR build it themselves. Who could have guessed that?

And, still no logical reason for minimum length requirements.

KW

 

[T.S.Davis]

no nitro converts

TODAY! God forbid we should dare to hope for some in the future.

Kevin, I personally do not care about the length requirements of the various classes. Your not going to get reason from me. We don't have them in mono. We don't have them in offshore. Why have lengths in sport? I DONT KNOW TOO!!Paul had a reason. Go with his.

Let's make it easier. Pretend that everyone is in their right minds and has come to the conclusion that you have and there need be no length restrictions in any class ever again. Much like mono classes. The speeds win. I get it. EVERYONE gets it!

I'll ask slower maybe. Maybe I can infuriate it out of you.

What

would

make

sport

hydro

successful

in

your

opinion?

Could you give some sort of input that does not include lopping off anyones head? It's getting tiresome.

You want to know what turns people off to FE? It's toxic rantings like yours that have nothing to add to a discussion. I'm sure surfers passing by have this image of you and I having a fist fight at the waters edge. For those that don't know us, we would not.

 

[Tuna]

Hey Kevin,
This it?

no reference to scale

no length requirements

no reference to intent

no reference to decorations (to subjective)

no exceptions for existing hulls (behind smooching)

no detail requirements (might get scratched)

no efforts to make transition from nitro easy

This one

"The boat may be purchased ready built, modified from an existing hull, or scratch built from any suitable material generally used in model boat construction."

and this one

I have one. Building on what Steve and Paul has said earlier , Speed and race conditions are going to dictate the hull size.

Now take 10 people like me , without a whole lot of race experience.Key word being race experience. A few vets trying to get an edge by pushing the sensible limit. And put 'em all in your heats. Your going to waste so much time avoiding upside down boats , you won't have chance. This might not be the best example , but has to make some kind of sense.

"Each boat must have a sponsor’s name or logo affixed to the hull; this sponsor may be of the builder’s choice. Each boat will also display race numbers of the driver’s choice affixed to each side of the hull."

are right out of the existing set of rules under which we are running now.  You want rid of those too?

Did I miss any?  Toss them on here so we can stop arguing and move on.

How about O,P,LSH,Q&S Not Rigger/cat/Tunnel Class?

The existing rules are stupid as are the authors of the latest proposals.  We got all that.  Are there any restrictions you would be in favor of?  Can we move on to what WOULD be a good rule set?

91255[/snapback]

​

Terry,

[no efforts to make transition from nitro easy)

That's too funny!

Where are all of those nitro converts? Don't hold your breath waiting for 'em!

They see a bunch of people with their heads so far up their rears that they demand several dozen racers (or more) extend the front (or rear) of their boat 1/8", rather than change one word in a set of rules. Absolutely asinine!

All of that, and you still cannot give one good, logical reason to have minimum length rules in Sport hydro. That's sad.

KW

91360[/snapback]

​

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Charlie,

Did you forget to add something there?

By the way, did you have any luck at getting a look at that hull we were talking about, to compare with the one you are building?

KW

 

[Tuna]

Don't know what happened up there?

The only logical reason to put any kind of min length requirement woulb be to protect you from a heat full of people like me.

Steve and Paul said it best. Speed and Race Water are going to dictate hull size. I can test all I want at the small pond I run on and get a 22" hydro to work. What's going to happen when I show up at the Nat's?

 

If all three of your heats are filled with people like me wouldn't you loose alot of time driving around upside down boats ?

 

As far as DQing a Viper or Cabover? Well one side says a rule is a rule. The other says a freakin 1/4" isn't going to give a performance advantage. Tough call. I see both sides.

 

[Tuna]

Charlie,
Did you forget to add something there?

By the way, did you have any luck at getting a look at that hull we were talking about, to compare with the one you are building?

KW

91372[/snapback]

​

No , Meant to get back in touch with ya. Send you a PM.

Thanks

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

S I M P L I F Y

The Sport rules were about 300 words.

The "change" made them almost 1000 words.

They were going to get larger as rules from other parts of the NAMBA book needed to be included but, 1000 words is kind of excesive. No one needs to be told that a boat can be either bought or built. Unless, of course we need to specifically outlaw the use of stolen boats in racing. Even if it is a carry over from the past, if it is common sense, get rid of it. It adds clutter and nothing else to the document.

 

[Dan Chase]

Quote:

They see a bunch of people with their heads so far up their rears that they demand several dozen racers (or more) extend the front (or rear) of their boat 1/8", rather than change one word in a set of rules. Absolutely asinine!

Really???

Show up at a nitro race with your sport 20 at 26 7/8" and see what happens?

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

Quote:They see a bunch of people with their heads so far up their rears that they demand several dozen racers (or more) extend the front (or rear) of their boat 1/8", rather than change one word in a set of rules. Absolutely asinine!

Really???

Show up at a nitro race with your sport 20 at 26 7/8" and see what happens?

91395[/snapback]

​

They don't wait until hundreds are sold and THEN bring it up.

KW

 

[forresterace]

And even if they did, those hundreds of boats would STILL be illegal under a pre-existing rule, even if owned by a grandfather

 

[drobie]

Kevin and Doug F.,

Could you please post your vision of how the Sport Hydro rules should read. The complete version please.

Thanks.

Or would you prefer to leave them as is so we can potentially race against pseudo riggers like the Spirit of the Eagle?

 

[T.S.Davis]

And even if they did, those hundreds of boats would STILL be illegal under a pre-existing rule, even if owned by a grandfather

91400[/snapback]

​

ROFLMAO

That's beautiful Doug.

 

[TRUCKPULL]

I still think that we should change the 60% after plane to 55% in the new proposal.

With Lipos coming maybe next year,

and then hull design changes for the lighter battery packs, causing faster boats.

We will then start to see a lot of different sponson attack angles, sponson depths, and sponson lengths.

Do we really want to restrict the people that design these boats for us, to 60% after plane.

Or we could just use the first line of rule 2-d

All riding surfaces in the front 50% of the hull.

Larry

NAMBA - 615

__________________

And May Your Prop Always Be WET

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I still think that we should change the 60% after plane to 55% in the new proposal.With Lipos coming maybe next year,

and then hull design changes for the lighter battery packs, causing faster boats.

We will then start to see a lot of different sponson attack angles, sponson depths, and sponson lengths.

Do we really want to restrict the people that design these boats for us, to 60% after plane.

Or we could just use the first line of rule 2-d

All riding surfaces in the front 50% of the hull.

Larry

NAMBA - 615

__________________

And May Your Prop Always Be WET

91435[/snapback]

​

At 60% afterplane: Rear of sponsons must be between (.5 X overall hull length) and (.6 X overall hull length) distance from the transom.

If 60% is changed to 55%: Rear of sponsons must be between (.5 X overall hull length) and (.55 X overall hull length) distance from the transom.

That's not what you are looking to do, is it?

Are you thinking that sponsons will need to go further rearward?

KW

 

[TRUCKPULL]

I do not know exactly where the will end up.

We now have a rule that states.

All riding surfaces (drive train and prop not included) must be in the front 50% of the total hull length.

Why change it to 60% when we do not know where the sponsons will be in two years?

I only recommended 55% as a compromise.

I also think that the 70% transom width rule should also state that measurement to be taken at the bottom of the transom.

Larry

NAMBA 615

 

[jstevens]

Like Kevin says, simplicity is the best.

Let the cell count, appearance and pond conditions set the standard.

Other than that, you just create more work for the hosting clubs.

Jeff

 

[Dan Chase]

Like Kevin says, simplicity is the best.

Let the cell count, appearance and pond conditions set the standard.

Other than that, you just create more work for the hosting clubs.

Jeff

91449[/snapback]

​

With a few exceptions, I'm starting to lean that way myself.

 

[Kevin Whitehead]

I do not know exactly where the will end up.We now have a rule that states.

All riding surfaces (drive train and prop not included) must be in the front 50% of the total hull length.

Why change it to 60% when we do not know where the sponsons will be in two years?

I only recommended 55% as a compromise.

I also think that the 70% transom width rule should also state that measurement to be taken at the bottom of the transom.

Larry

NAMBA 615

91446[/snapback]

​

Then what you propose is not changing the afterplane rule. It would be changing the front 50% to 55%. I'm not even certain where the sponson rears are at on the hulls I have now. I'll have to see where they are at later today.

If someone has a shovelnose lke a Bandit, Aussie, or a Dark Horse the afterplane narrows like a typical classic shovelnose design. What are the measurements of the tunnel and the transom (at the bottom)? Can anyone check this? They may already be less than 70% at the bottom. I think that is why it is checked at the widest part of the transom.

KW