That's not messed up...
The RMS rating on any subwoofer is an
upper limit.
In other words, "if you feed any more power than ____ into this subwoofer, you risk thermal damage".
Less power is always healthier... less current flowing through a voice coil = less heat = longetivity, reliability. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
How much power you need is a different story...
...and that's completely dependent on your enclosure, and how much efficiency you've dialed into that enclosure design.
Remember, Hoffman's Iron Law states the following three items are mutually exclusive in a subwoofer/enclosure alignment:
1) small enclosure size
2) low frequency extension
3) high efficiency
So, if you've designed an enclosure to extend as low as possible in the smallest box possible... you've thrown efficiency out the window.... and hell, you might need
more than the RMS rating of the sub to reach maximum excursion with that sub.
But on the other hand, if you build the enclosure larger, you can increase both low frequency extension, and efficiency.
For a great many years, I had some JL 10W6's in a 4.5 cu.ft. enclosure, tuned to 32hz... running off a 400w Alpine amp. Each 10W6 was rated at 300w, and JL is notorious about conservatively rating their subs (almost to the degree of lying). That works out to 133 watts per sub... and I was pushing the subs to max excursion, max output - by design. Rear window could turn to jello... and this being a SQ alignment! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
Efficiency is in your hands!
Now... would I trust the guys at WCC to design an enclosure that was efficient, built to properly mate those subs to the power they were feeding them?
....fortunately, they seem to outsource most of the audio designs on that show. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif