- Jan 18, 2009
- Reaction score
Ok, I very well know that this is outside of the NAR's safety code.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. You darn near bit my head off for doing the same thing with Estes motors and now you are promoting breaking NAR safety code because Bill Stine said so. That wouldn't stand up in court. Regardless of the safety issue, it's against the rules.Yes:
Many times over the past 8+ years. As a matter of fact I've spoken with Bill Stine directly about this method of converting standard MMX motors into booster motors on at least two occasions. He concures completely, as far as encouraging it as a great way to Stage micro motors/models.
At Naram-50 we were talking about staging again and I mentioned it'd sure be nice if He and/or Quest would issued a tip sheet on converting standard to booster motors using this safe and easy method. If this happened, it would no longer be considered altering the motor and Should be allowed at any NAR sanctioned launch.
He the said "Oh man John I sure wish you'd reminded me about the a month ago..... we could have had the last 50k or so, MMX-II finished without the delay or ejection charge...No problem". Well crap! I said and we went on talking about several other staging issues, this sort of side tracked me from getting back to weither or not Quest would issue such a the tip sheet...DOH!!
But back to your question.. with it I've gone from the rather disappointing 30-35% upperstage ignition rate to about 95% success. I've still had a couple fail to ignite but they were taped together method rather then Gap staged or even semi gap staged which i've found over the years is a more reliable method then the taped together method.
Why don't you send Bill an e-mail asking about issuing a booster conversion fact sheet? maybe if enough OTHER micromaxxers make the request he'll follow thur with either the memo or producing a booster motor
Hope this helps.
Wow. You darn near bit my head off for doing the same thing with Estes motors and now you are promoting breaking NAR safety code because Bill Stine said so. That wouldn't stand up in court. Regardless of the safety issue, it's against the rules.
On top of that I did not suggest doing it, I only reported that it could be done. You are, in effect, suggesting people break the NAR safety code. Stine may have ok'd it so the "intended use" part can slide, but the codes still say not to alter a motor.
Wow, this doesn't sound very "10 year old friendly".I don't care a rats little rosy rear end if what JJ and I are talking about here will hold up in court. Your no lawyer, so your opinion on the subject has 0 weight. There is NO double standard....We're talking about the difference between a manufacturers suggested altered use of a product and an end users unthinking remarks about altering a product on an open forum. Two Wildly different things.