Tweet
Reprinted from Propeller june 2007:
By Mike Johnson, Stock Outboard Steering Committee
In January of this year, Stock Outboard Chair Ed Hearn formed a Stock Outboard Steering Committee chaired by John Runne. Members of the committee are Bob Trolian (Region 14), Dave Schubert (Region 5), Gary Romberg (Region 14), Mike Johnson (Region 10), Scott Reed (Region 2), and Dana Holt (Region 6). The committee’s function will be to generate proposals and rule changes to the SORC to achieve the goals set forth below.
John Runne has established an ambitious set of goals for the committee:
• Create a philosophy for Stock Outboard—what classes, what structure, what kind of plan?
• Develop class standards—not necessarily for elimination, but for the evaluation and planning of classes.
• Lay out short-term and long-term class structures, and a system to transition from where we are to where we want to be.
• Create a finite method for the phasing in and out of motors specific enough for the membership to prepare for their future.
• Encourage the Stock Outboard Racing Commission (SORC) to become a proactive decision-making body rather than a reactive one by encouraging planning.
• Create a strategy for the growth and promotion of Stock Outboard.
• Find ways for struggling clubs and regions to reduce the cost of putting on events.
• Create a network of mentors to help new members, and a way to funnel used equipment to a single marketplace.
• Suggest changes to the APBA Board of Directors to improve communications and decision-making processes in order to fully develop proposals and get clear direction from the membership to commissioners.
The committee has already come together around some philosophical building blocks:
• Local racing is our key to growth.
• Every successful organization has a business plan; Stock Outboard needs one.
• The future of Stock Outboard is more important than the present or past.
• Focus on attracting new racers.
• Old motors need to fade away.
The committee presented a report to the SORC at the 2007 National Meeting. It included the following basic elements:
• A class structure with a four-year transition plan for motors (see table).
• Specific goals for each class with proposals to achieve these goals.
• Minimum class participation standards for national status.
The proposed class structure is an effort to work back to a simpler structure consisting of 12 Stock Outboard classes: A, 15SS, B, C, and D (Runabout and Hydro), 25SSH, and 45SST.
A key component of the plan is to transition the A, B, 20SSH, and 25SSR classes to the new Sidewinder motors being produced by Racing Outboards LLC over the next few years. These four would morph into the A, 15SS, and B classes, with the Sidewinder 15 and 20 motors eventually becoming the favored motors. The current primary motors in these classes are 15-30 years old. The intention is to avoid prolonging the life of out-of-production motors if there is a viable alternate available.
A critical part of this transition is Racing Outboards being able to deliver motors. They have made great progress and expectations are high. We feel that if they can maintain the schedule that they expect, than these motors should have the opportunity to move into our class structure as soon as possible. The future of these classes is reliant upon the success of the Sidewinder project.
Since we are not likely to see a return to the days of motor production for Stock Outboard at a major corporate level, we depend on small endeavors like Racing Outboards and others for new motors. Success for them is success for us. This means that the transition to new motors may need to be handled in a different manner than the SORC has handled it in the past.
New motors like the Sidewinders need to be given the opportunity to be competitive out of the box and to become the dominant motors in their classes. We can only recommend new motors to new racers if they can be expected to do well with them.
Current racers will certainly not buy the new motor if they are still winning with their old motors. The idea is to create a situation where the class will naturally drift to the newer motor, and the old one will phase itself out.
The final basic element presented in Los Angeles was a new set of rules for class eligibility. The intent of these rules was to clearly identify when a class is not meeting a National level of participation, and the process for the class when it drops below that threshold.
The proposed rules automatically reduced classes to local status if they failed to meet the requirements. It did not identify specific classes—as long as a class meets the minimum participation standards, it maintains a National status. By establishing minimum participation class standards, we allow the market to determine which classes need focus to remain viable. This would relieve the SORC of the responsibility of eliminating classes.
The SORC approved the overall report in principle at the 2007 National meeting, and put the class eligibility rule changes on the ballot. This particular rule has already been voted down by the Stock Outboard membership.
Change is a difficult process. There are a number of big-picture questions involved. Do we keep both older motors and newer motors, to avoid potentially turning away existing racers? Do we make newer motors dominant in order to create a market for them? Is the cost of equipment going to turn people away? How should change be managed—from the top down or the bottom up?
The Steering Committee is in the process of writing rules to implement the basic elements contained in the article. As rules are formulated, they will be sent to the SORC for approval. The Steering Committee welcomes discussion of these issues and encourages you to contact your region Stock Commissioner(s) with your opinions.
The changes approved by the Stock Outboard D Parity Committee were also approved by the APBA Board of Directors on April 17th, 2007. They take effect 30 days thereafter, on May 17th, 2007, and are in effect for the current racing season. The changes were published on page 5 in the May issue of Propeller and online.
The first listed motor in each class/year (exception - DSR/DSH) is considered the “motor of choice.”
Class 2007 2008 2009 2010
ASR/ASH
07
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
08
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
Sidewinder “A”
(probationary)
09
Sidewinder “A”
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
2010
Sidewinder “A”
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
BSR/BSH
(becomes 15SSR/H)
07
Hot Rod 15
Sidewinder 15 (probationary)
08
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
09
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
2010
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
20SSH
(becomes BSH)
07
Yamato 80
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Sidewinder 20
(probationary)
08
Yamato 80
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Sidewinder 20
(probationary?)
09
Sidewinder 20
Yamato 80
2010
Sidewinder 20
Yamato 80
25SSR
(becomes BSR)
07
Mercury 25XS
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Hot Rod 20
Sidewinder 20
(probationary)
08
Mercury 25XS
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Hot Rod 20
Sidewinder 20
(probationary?)
09
Sidewinder 20
Mercury 25XS
2010
Sidewinder 20
Mercury 25XS
CSR/CSH Yamato 102/30 Yamato 102/302 Yamato 102/302 Yamato 102/302
25SSH Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS
DSR/DSH Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
pav225
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 186
Question on Yamato motors....
Why would the SORC, and racers, ever consider removing a Yamato motor from a class?
Speaking from experience, they have been the most reliable and least expensive motors in APBA for the last 25+ years. These are both attributes that new racers tend to find appealing.
- Mike Pavlick
This should be the model. Same goes for 20SSH and CSH, buy a 302, a restrictor plate, and one boat. Racing 2 classes equates to water time, more bang for the buck and everyone is happy (at least I am).
Sounds like most people want to leave the Merc in the A class, has anyone kicked around the idea of a detuned Sidewinder in J? This way you can transition from J to A at no additional cost. It follows Mike's thought process...............
__________________
Gladkowski Racing
I have been concerned about the DOMINANCE of one manufacturer (Racing Outboards) being projected for stock outboard racing. I have a purchasing background and the idea of projecting one manufacturer to supply motors to 6 out of 11 classes while the best supplier (Yamato) we have had over the last decade has only 2 classes projected would be unthinkable.
The 20 SSH class is a very viable class with used 80 motors available on the internet and in the racing community plus parts available from one or more vendors. Also, with the 102 and 302 motor able to compete in the class and new 302 motors available, it just does not make sense to me to put the Sidewinder into that class and to remove the 102 and 302 from the class.
Some people are indicating the 302 cannot compete on the national level with the 80 motor. I disagree with that conclusion. With the proper setup, our testing indicates the 302 is competitive with the 80 motor.
I do believe a lot of time and discussion has gone into the suggestion put forth in the last Propeller and I appreciate the hard work of the people that put the suggestion together. I just hope the comments above are taken seriously.
Charlie Pater
By Mike Johnson, Stock Outboard Steering Committee
In January of this year, Stock Outboard Chair Ed Hearn formed a Stock Outboard Steering Committee chaired by John Runne. Members of the committee are Bob Trolian (Region 14), Dave Schubert (Region 5), Gary Romberg (Region 14), Mike Johnson (Region 10), Scott Reed (Region 2), and Dana Holt (Region 6). The committee’s function will be to generate proposals and rule changes to the SORC to achieve the goals set forth below.
John Runne has established an ambitious set of goals for the committee:
• Create a philosophy for Stock Outboard—what classes, what structure, what kind of plan?
• Develop class standards—not necessarily for elimination, but for the evaluation and planning of classes.
• Lay out short-term and long-term class structures, and a system to transition from where we are to where we want to be.
• Create a finite method for the phasing in and out of motors specific enough for the membership to prepare for their future.
• Encourage the Stock Outboard Racing Commission (SORC) to become a proactive decision-making body rather than a reactive one by encouraging planning.
• Create a strategy for the growth and promotion of Stock Outboard.
• Find ways for struggling clubs and regions to reduce the cost of putting on events.
• Create a network of mentors to help new members, and a way to funnel used equipment to a single marketplace.
• Suggest changes to the APBA Board of Directors to improve communications and decision-making processes in order to fully develop proposals and get clear direction from the membership to commissioners.
The committee has already come together around some philosophical building blocks:
• Local racing is our key to growth.
• Every successful organization has a business plan; Stock Outboard needs one.
• The future of Stock Outboard is more important than the present or past.
• Focus on attracting new racers.
• Old motors need to fade away.
The committee presented a report to the SORC at the 2007 National Meeting. It included the following basic elements:
• A class structure with a four-year transition plan for motors (see table).
• Specific goals for each class with proposals to achieve these goals.
• Minimum class participation standards for national status.
The proposed class structure is an effort to work back to a simpler structure consisting of 12 Stock Outboard classes: A, 15SS, B, C, and D (Runabout and Hydro), 25SSH, and 45SST.
A key component of the plan is to transition the A, B, 20SSH, and 25SSR classes to the new Sidewinder motors being produced by Racing Outboards LLC over the next few years. These four would morph into the A, 15SS, and B classes, with the Sidewinder 15 and 20 motors eventually becoming the favored motors. The current primary motors in these classes are 15-30 years old. The intention is to avoid prolonging the life of out-of-production motors if there is a viable alternate available.
A critical part of this transition is Racing Outboards being able to deliver motors. They have made great progress and expectations are high. We feel that if they can maintain the schedule that they expect, than these motors should have the opportunity to move into our class structure as soon as possible. The future of these classes is reliant upon the success of the Sidewinder project.
Since we are not likely to see a return to the days of motor production for Stock Outboard at a major corporate level, we depend on small endeavors like Racing Outboards and others for new motors. Success for them is success for us. This means that the transition to new motors may need to be handled in a different manner than the SORC has handled it in the past.
New motors like the Sidewinders need to be given the opportunity to be competitive out of the box and to become the dominant motors in their classes. We can only recommend new motors to new racers if they can be expected to do well with them.
Current racers will certainly not buy the new motor if they are still winning with their old motors. The idea is to create a situation where the class will naturally drift to the newer motor, and the old one will phase itself out.
The final basic element presented in Los Angeles was a new set of rules for class eligibility. The intent of these rules was to clearly identify when a class is not meeting a National level of participation, and the process for the class when it drops below that threshold.
The proposed rules automatically reduced classes to local status if they failed to meet the requirements. It did not identify specific classes—as long as a class meets the minimum participation standards, it maintains a National status. By establishing minimum participation class standards, we allow the market to determine which classes need focus to remain viable. This would relieve the SORC of the responsibility of eliminating classes.
The SORC approved the overall report in principle at the 2007 National meeting, and put the class eligibility rule changes on the ballot. This particular rule has already been voted down by the Stock Outboard membership.
Change is a difficult process. There are a number of big-picture questions involved. Do we keep both older motors and newer motors, to avoid potentially turning away existing racers? Do we make newer motors dominant in order to create a market for them? Is the cost of equipment going to turn people away? How should change be managed—from the top down or the bottom up?
The Steering Committee is in the process of writing rules to implement the basic elements contained in the article. As rules are formulated, they will be sent to the SORC for approval. The Steering Committee welcomes discussion of these issues and encourages you to contact your region Stock Commissioner(s) with your opinions.
The changes approved by the Stock Outboard D Parity Committee were also approved by the APBA Board of Directors on April 17th, 2007. They take effect 30 days thereafter, on May 17th, 2007, and are in effect for the current racing season. The changes were published on page 5 in the May issue of Propeller and online.
The first listed motor in each class/year (exception - DSR/DSH) is considered the “motor of choice.”
Class 2007 2008 2009 2010
ASR/ASH
07
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
08
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
Sidewinder “A”
(probationary)
09
Sidewinder “A”
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
2010
Sidewinder “A”
OMC “A”
Mercury “A”
BSR/BSH
(becomes 15SSR/H)
07
Hot Rod 15
Sidewinder 15 (probationary)
08
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
09
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
2010
Sidewinder 15
Hot Rod 15
20SSH
(becomes BSH)
07
Yamato 80
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Sidewinder 20
(probationary)
08
Yamato 80
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Sidewinder 20
(probationary?)
09
Sidewinder 20
Yamato 80
2010
Sidewinder 20
Yamato 80
25SSR
(becomes BSR)
07
Mercury 25XS
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Hot Rod 20
Sidewinder 20
(probationary)
08
Mercury 25XS
Yamato 102/302 (res.)
Hot Rod 20
Sidewinder 20
(probationary?)
09
Sidewinder 20
Mercury 25XS
2010
Sidewinder 20
Mercury 25XS
CSR/CSH Yamato 102/30 Yamato 102/302 Yamato 102/302 Yamato 102/302
25SSH Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS Mercury 25XS
DSR/DSH Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
Tohatsu/Bass “D”
Mercury 44XS
pav225
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 186
Question on Yamato motors....
Why would the SORC, and racers, ever consider removing a Yamato motor from a class?
Speaking from experience, they have been the most reliable and least expensive motors in APBA for the last 25+ years. These are both attributes that new racers tend to find appealing.
- Mike Pavlick
This should be the model. Same goes for 20SSH and CSH, buy a 302, a restrictor plate, and one boat. Racing 2 classes equates to water time, more bang for the buck and everyone is happy (at least I am).
Sounds like most people want to leave the Merc in the A class, has anyone kicked around the idea of a detuned Sidewinder in J? This way you can transition from J to A at no additional cost. It follows Mike's thought process...............
__________________
Gladkowski Racing
I have been concerned about the DOMINANCE of one manufacturer (Racing Outboards) being projected for stock outboard racing. I have a purchasing background and the idea of projecting one manufacturer to supply motors to 6 out of 11 classes while the best supplier (Yamato) we have had over the last decade has only 2 classes projected would be unthinkable.
The 20 SSH class is a very viable class with used 80 motors available on the internet and in the racing community plus parts available from one or more vendors. Also, with the 102 and 302 motor able to compete in the class and new 302 motors available, it just does not make sense to me to put the Sidewinder into that class and to remove the 102 and 302 from the class.
Some people are indicating the 302 cannot compete on the national level with the 80 motor. I disagree with that conclusion. With the proper setup, our testing indicates the 302 is competitive with the 80 motor.
I do believe a lot of time and discussion has gone into the suggestion put forth in the last Propeller and I appreciate the hard work of the people that put the suggestion together. I just hope the comments above are taken seriously.
Charlie Pater
Comment