Multiple Pumps

Discussion in 'General' started by NickMyers, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. daisycutter

    daisycutter Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    130
    Maxspin
    Have you ever battled with or against a 2 pump ship? Have you seen one in person?
     
  2. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,575
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Unless we are identifying a format when proposing 'solutions' it is difficult to have a multi-format discussion.. each format has different target audiences, participants, aims, and goals which as I see it do not overlap very much.
    I for one can only speak from the IRC format point of view because I have NEVER been to a big gun event or a treaty event.. how can I offer a valid opinion on anything that occurs at the events for those groups?

    I am not sure that the direction of this thread was made clear...please see below:

    Rule proposal....


    Banning.....


    Keep in mind there was a large discussion on the IRC rules list about this. To this day not one of the folks that brought up the issues were able to provide any other reason for banning two pumps other than:
    1> Ships don't sink .. they are supposed to sink.. (I have provided data contrary to this claim)
    2> I don't like it.. I don't agree with it .. It's annoying.. (Is that a good enough basis for a rule change?)

    As far as the IRC... please convince me with hard data, research, something tangible so that if I am wrong I can 'see the light'. So far nobody has been willing to offer this information so that I can make an informed decision.

    Also please show me how an NC with 80 holes below the waterline and does not sink is more/less fair than a 2 pump ship with 80 holes below the waterline that does not sink?
    Or.. a single pump ship that has 20 holes below the waterline and does not sink.. vs. a 2 pump ship with 20 holes below the waterline that does not sink...

    What IS the difference?

    I can name one... one of those two ships will has at LEAST 500-2500 points LESS of scoring potential compared to other ships of the same class..... hint.. it's not the single pump ship.

    J
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2017
    Wmemlo likes this.
  3. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,818
    Location:
    MD
    Besides multiple pumps, what about pump power? Didn't there used to be a rule that a pump motor couldn't be bigger than the drive motors? With today's brushless tech, it's easy enough to push 300W or more into a pump (that's 1/2 HP btw).
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2016
  4. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,575
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Steve, as you are IRC I will assume you are referring to IRC rules.

    Are you suggesting there is a problem with pump power? What problem are we solving by limiting motors? I know of ships with 300KV pump motors that sank at the Brouhaha in the past.. so I am not sure what the issue might be.
     
  5. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    That was an MWCI rule on the can size. Not sure it was ever in the IRCWCC rules.
     
  6. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    True the first post was vague. I was asked for the thread split and provided it. There had to be a first post and I didn't want it to be @Maxspin's because that doesn't make a very interesting conversation, just a horror show. I've updated the first post with some vague 'clarity'
     
  7. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    300 kilowatts? does Hobbyking sell anything in that range?
     
  8. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    Not that I ever saw. Wasn't it based on can size too? How effective would that have been applied to a ship with a brushless pump and brushed drive?
     
  9. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,818
    Location:
    MD
    Just bringing up a point that there's more to pumping than just the number of pumps. IMO, this discussion is pointless. As you've been trying to get across, there's so many factors involved in this topic, it'd be near impossible to regulate it to everyone's satisfaction (beyond the current regs that is).
     
    jadfer likes this.
  10. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,818
    Location:
    MD
    Excuse me, 300W! ;-)
     
  11. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    where pumps are involved, any discussion not involving the actual output tends to be a bit pointless
     
  12. Wmemlo

    Wmemlo Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2014
    Posts:
    79
    Location:
    Longview, tx
    That's just it. It seems that there's a negative perception regarding multiple pumps, but no data to really support it. I think jadfer pretty much established that the myth of the unsinkable two pump ship is just that- a myth. Yet we have rule proposals floating around to ban the practice. Why? I think we should avoid piling on more and more rules based on perception rather than reality. Leave as much tactical and design freedom in there as we can, and only do something if somebody breaks the hobby.
    When I started back in 01, it was common knowledge that you set aside one unit, and everything else went to guns. Now, it seems that that isn't the only way of doing things. I see that as good. We should be open to new ideas. I love the ability to vary what I do, and vary what I see.
     
    jadfer likes this.
  13. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,279
    I'm a one pump guy...
    Two pumps was not started to let ships take more below damage. Historically Nagatos would take a few above holes from trips in the bow and would run themselves under. Two pumps were added so a Nagato could run and fight sidemounts with 100s of above holes. This fad has moved to other ships that may not really need it. Like a Baden or Fuso. If I had time I'd do a study on scores. Last study I did showed most ships sink with light damage from a failure (pump/skin/damage control) of some kind. Other ships sink with heavy damage from a drive steering or captain failure. Working ships rarely sink. Since I started in 01 there are a lot more poeple building working ships. That's why less ships sink. It's not two pumps it's the ships working.
     
    Trey Schultz, Maxspin, Panzer and 5 others like this.
  14. Renodemona

    Renodemona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    813
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    I've run a 2-pump ship (Nagato) at 2 nats, and the same ship at 1 nats. I sank in both configurations. The damage was essentially the same, but with 1 pump I lost maneuverability and therefore options if my bow got tripled up early. I moved to 2 pumps so that I could give myself more options to engage if (when) I made mistakes and took damage. There are some ships that I feel wouldn't benefit from 2 pumps at all (Kongo, Lion, WV, Arizona, etc) while others would depending on battling style (Nagato, Bismarck, etc). There's some that I'm not sure about as Bob has mentioned. I battled a Fuso for many years and I seemed to do just fine with 1 pump because I knew the ship very well, what it could do, what it couldn't and as long as I stayed within its strengths I was very effective. When I made mistakes I paid for them and sometimes got sunk. I still would have sunk with 2 pumps. Its a building option. I wouldn't put 2 pumps in a Fuso, but someone might and really like it who knows. I'd never build some ships, some people love those same ships.
     
    jadfer, rcaircraftnut and NickMyers like this.
  15. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,575
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    That is a good point. My view is.. there are already rules about output... if that is something a participating Captain requires... why not join the group that meets that requirement? It's already there....
     
  16. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,575
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Yes Steve.. .I have been trying to get the point across.. I sunk.. point out my ship on the side of the pond.. pictures of sunken 2 pump ships... data with sunken 2 pump ships... and folks STILL SAY.. 2 pump ships don't sink.. lets make a rule..

    Why would they keep saying that? I just don't understand.
     
  17. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,295
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    With the proviso that I do not have any problem with multiple pumps and strongly oppose a rule on it... if running two pumps does not make a difference, why do it?
     
  18. daisycutter

    daisycutter Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    130
    That is a great point. As Bob mentioned it allows you take more damage esp above sea and stay/get into a fur ball. It is actually may be increasing sinks due to more side mount use.
     
    jadfer and Tugboat like this.
  19. Wmemlo

    Wmemlo Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2014
    Posts:
    79
    Location:
    Longview, tx
    Is that why NCs have seemed to fall out of favor? Before 05 (my last nats), the allied fleet was predominantly those (or sodaks). Now it seems to favor other ships like the QE.
     
  20. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,279
    NCs & SoDaks main weapons are the trips. They idea always was rip up ships right at or above the waterline without taking damage yourself, then finish them off with sidemounts when they can't run away. Ships with two pumps can always run away. An NC vs Nagato in a sidemount fight is going to get trashed and sink without dealing out much damage themselves. The NC popularity started to fall off in 11/12. In 13, MWC NATS, there four NCs working with the two Vanguards. Tim & Brian both out sidemounted the sidemount heavy Axis with their Vanguards. The NCs fought around the "Vanguard Island". Andy & I had a great time battling around the Island of Tim. There is still a place for the NC, you just can't win a NATS with 7 of them as your main fire power like you used to be able to.
    Part of it is the people bringing the ships too. At most MWC NATS you'd find guys Tim, Chris P, Chris G, Charlie, Andy, Ron, Mike & I with NCs. Some pretty good battlers with some pretty well built ships. Now all but Mike have moved on to other ships the last 2-3 years and the other guys with NCs have moved on too. No one has stepped into replace them because everyone wants lots of sidemounts.
    I remember back in 03/04 people complained that all the ships were NCs, SoDaks, Nagatos and Bismarcks. The thought (by some) was to change the rules to make other ships better to get more on the water. Or to limit how many of each type could go to NATS, just silly in my opinion. But the way battling has changed has got two of those ships off the list. Now it's all QEs, Nagatos and Bismarcks.