Forums

So This came out last week

Dear NZMPBA member,
With focus on safety, the NZMPBA Committee announce the following rule updates for the Offshore Hi Points Series.

With immediate effect :
2.4 Ghz Radio Control systems must be used with the integrated Fail safe in operation. (This reinforces the current rule in General Rules which states that if the radio set being used has a failsafe system, then it must be activated and used)
Effective January 1st 2017, all boats must use 2.4 Ghz Radio control systems and protect against zero voltage receiver failure by using a
coreless digital throttle servo that allows the throttle spring to shutoff the carburettor when power is removed
an ignition coil disabling system.

Ummm, a few problems here!

This is my own response to the committee, although I am told what has been put out here was not what was discussed and agreed to at the last committee meeting, this appears to be a one person rewrite!

I do not think this has been written particularly well and as it is, and is in part an over reaction to a problem that was caused by both an individual and scrutineers. They are both at fault in regards to the incident at Hamilton for allowing the boat in question to be on the water.
There are as I see it some problems with this new 'rule'.

1) Effective January 1st 2017, all boats must use 2.4 Ghz Radio control, systems and protect against zero voltage receiver failure

"All boats", as it is written brings about the exclusion of nitro powered boats as they cannot use an ignition fail safe and their carbs do not have return springs. Therefore you have removed nitros from the offshore series. You are also forcing people into changing radio systems, and while that may be only a small number is it really necessary or fair as external radio failsafes are available and can be used. (Bearing in mind the majority of boaters either use failsafes already or are not the one(s) causing a problem!)

2) Why a double redundancy here? Surely one system or the other is sufficient?

3)coreless digital throttle servo that allows the throttle spring to shutoff the carburettor when power is removed

Has this been tested? Why does it have to be a digital coreless servo? I run a standard futaba S148 that can be pulled back by the carb spring while the engine is running. To make this work better a small tension spring can be added to provide a positive assist. Why can this not be an acceptable system?

4) an ignition coil disabling system.

What systems are available, suitable and reliable? Again what testing has been done to prove their use in our application? What about the cost? Killer Bee failsafes are $115, that represents a fairly reasonable extra cost to every boater. While that might not bother those who have fat wallets, it will be harder for others on tighter budgets! Did you consider this at all? What if they do not work properly, money wasted unnecessarily. Was it considered also that if these types of failsafes cause problems then they will undoubtably be switched off or removed. Will that be policed and boats pulled from the water or disqualified?

5) If this rule is in place as it is written, will the race organisers/scrutineers stand hard by it and not allow compliant boats on the water? They must do so and adhere to this, as it would otherwise be unfair to those that have complied. So real tough for someone that has traveled a long way to compete but is not fully compliant to the double redundancy! Considering the lack of testing, the short timeframe, i.e next season for this to be in effect is somewhat unreasonable also.
6) You may just as well have this apply to all boats in all regattas!

In regards to the way the committee is operating these rule changes, you have not allowed for any membership feedback before introducing the rule. This was never the intention of giving all the power to the committee as far as rule changes etc. There should still be a place for consultation with the membership in this regard and the forum would have been a perfectly good way to do this. If the committee continues to do what it will and ignore communicating with the membership in general then there has been nothing learned and the troubles of the past will surely continue. Undoubtably this is likely to have an effect on numbers competing next year, it is not much different from what happened a few years ago with 'rules' which led to a reduction in membership due to members being disillusioned and dissatisfied with the way things were run. In short back to the way things were, undermining the work and effort that has been put in over the last 3-4 years. The committee is not a self serving dictatorial body, they are there to serve for the benefit of the association and model power boating in New Zealand.

Peter Anderson.

The rule is not intended to be double redundancy, it's supposed to be coreless servo, or ignition disabling system. This recognises that the 2.4 gig sets with onboard failsafes do not failsafe when when voltage is completely lost, and that not everybody trusts the ignition disabling systems. The information we have is that only coreless servos have can be over ridden by a spring. I guess if you can prove that a servo allows the throttle to close under spring pressure then that meets the intent of the rule. The pint is that you must choose a method for shutting the boat down if the receiver loses power.

The bottom line is that we were extremely lucky that the incident at Hamilton resulted in the out of control boat hitting another boat. The runaway boat was heading directly for the foot path where people were walking and cars were driving. The outcome, had the runaway boat not hit another boat could have been very messy and should serve as a wake up call.

The rule has been sent out for consultation so provide your feedback to the committee please. General business at the AGM is a forum where these things can be replaced.