2010 SO Agenda

[Racerkyle20]

[QUOTE=Big Don;148828]
I’m not sure who it was but someone said on here that the 302’s are some of the fastest 20’s in the country.
QUOTE]

Jimi O said that....but HE really does have one of the fastest BSH (20ss) in the country. But i believe he also said that he runs his 80 as well. Depends on the course for him and Peters.

[14J]

Whatever you guys decide its fine with me we’ll just have our props reworked like we had to do in C and spend another 1000.00.

I'm glad Don used a figure in his commentary. In a previous post I had expressed that parity costs money and I questioned whether true parity is achievable. NASCAR has salaried employees working on parity and they continually have to tweak. Anytime you tweak someone winds up having to reopen the check book. I'm not naive, racing cost money. The problem is the frequency. We need consistency and clarity in our form of racing and I hope we're working towards this.

What are we trying to do with this class......

Are we trying to equalize the 80 and the 302? Are we trying to make the 302 dominate? What do we do when the 20ci enters the picture? What kind of help will they need?

Will this move cost both the 80 and 302 owner? If the goal is to slow down the 80 and help the 302 might you also be slowing down the 302 by dropping the height? Again assuming this is the goal has someone done the test work to establish that this is the solution?

Look at CSH for example. I've been back on the water for 4 years now. I've experienced a height rule change and a head spec change. I won't share what that cost me. We know the agenda behind both these moves and what has the outcome been beside hitting people in the pockets?

Again, I still think every class needs a clear motor of choice and preferable an available one.

[Big Don]

I'm glad Don used a figure in his commentary. In a previous post I had expressed that parity costs money and I questioned whether true parity is achievable. NASCAR has salaried employees working on parity and they continually have to tweak. Anytime you tweak someone winds up having to reopen the check book. I'm not naive, racing cost money. The problem is the frequency. We need consistency and clarity in our form of racing and I hope we're working towards this.

What are we trying to do with this class......

Are we trying to equalize the 80 and the 302? Are we trying to make the 302 dominate? What do we do when the 20ci enters the picture? What kind of help will they need?

Will this move cost both the 80 and 302 owner? If the goal is to slow down the 80 and help the 302 might you also be slowing down the 302 by dropping the height? Again assuming this is the goal has someone done the test work to establish that this is the solution?

Look at CSH for example. I've been back on the water for 4 years now. I've experienced a height rule change and a head spec change. I won't share what that cost me. We know the agenda behind both these moves and what has the outcome been beside hitting people in the pockets?

Again, I still think every class needs a clear motor of choice and preferable an available one.

Troy,

Good questions

I'm feeling the love a little more now

[14J]

[QUOTE=Racerkyle20;148829]

I’m not sure who it was but someone said on here that the 302’s are some of the fastest 20’s in the country.
QUOTE]

Jimi O said that....but HE really does have one of the fastest BSH (20ss) in the country. But i believe he also said that he runs his 80 as well. Depends on the course for him and Peters.

Another post to build from........

Assuming we wind up with the 80, 302, and 20ci in this class. Know let's assume the long range plan is for the 302 and 20ci to be the motors of choice. We than us parity to equalize them. Well I'm no wrench but I'm sure the torque curves will never match up and depending on the course one will always be preferred over the other. So how does scenario make of an equal playing field? The guy with deep pockets can work on both programs and have one of each in his trailer ready to go. Yet again why I favor one motor of choice.

Since I don’t race this class and I’ve beaten my point to death in (2) separate threads I’ll go away now. I promise!

[Matt Dagostino]

$$$$$$$

We know the agenda behind both these moves and what has the outcome been beside hitting people in the pockets?

My dear Troy...............the outcome has been as the SORC predicted. Motors aren't burning up therefore saving Troy and the Captain money

In talking to Ric Montoya last month he told me since the SORC lowered the height on the CSH class he doesn't sell 102 and 302 pistons at the races anymore. I believe this is called a 'win-win' for our members. Sorry Ric.

[Kev43V]

I just wish we would be honest about the reasons we are doing some of these things.

Amen to that Brother from the north

[14J]

Troy,

Good questions

I'm feeling the love a little more now

The Pavlicks are rubbing off on me

[14J]

My dear Troy...............the outcome has been as the SORC predicted. Motors aren't burning up therefore saving Troy and the Captain money

In talking to Ric Montoya last month he told me since the SORC lowered the height on the CSH class he doesn't sell 102 and 302 pistons at the races anymore. I believe this is called a 'win-win' for our members. Sorry Ric.

If that's the reason fine. But as Don said lets be honest about what we are doing. If the idea is to help the 302 than lets bill it as such.

[Matt Dagostino]

[QUOTE=14J;148832][QUOTE=

Since I don’t race this class and I’ve beaten my point to death in (2) separate threads I’ll go away now. I promise![/QUOTE]

Troy
Promises promises......and stop kissing up to Big Don, it's Pavlick who has all the good wheels!

[Big Don]

[QUOTE=14J;148832][QUOTE=Racerkyle20;148829]

Another post to build from........

Well I'm no wrench but I'm sure the torque curves will never match up and depending on the course one will always be preferred over the other.
QUOTE]

Exactly!!! Which is why we struggled with the OMC & Mercury getting on the same level playing field.

[Big Don]

[QUOTE=Matt Dagostino;148838]

Troy
Promises promises......and stop kissing up to Big Don, it's Pavlick who has all the good wheels!

No he doesn't. He just has all the Horse Power!

[Matt Dagostino]

Spinoff Effect!

If that's the reason fine. But as Don said lets be honest about what we are doing. If the idea is to help the 302 than lets bill it as such.

The overheating issue is the primary concern however the spinoff effect could very well be to help the 302 (the currently available motor!!) continue to be more competitive at the lower height............In CSH when the height was lowered it can be argued both ways whether the 302 was helped performance wise against the 'TOP SHELF' 102's. But again, helping the 302's performance is not the primary issue here.

FYI.............i am a big fan of the Yamato program. They have been the backbone of our sport for 25 years and continue to be there for us. In the next couple years it would be nice to see the model 302 be made the MOTOR OF CHOICE in both the Yamato classes and let the old out of production 102 and 80 play catch up for a change! Not a sermon, just a thought!

[dholt]

Commissioners

Just Say No to 20ssH motor heights.

Are you kidding me? No need for parity between the restricted 302 and 80. Parity already exists. A restricted 302 has won 2 Nationals in the past 3 years.

[dholt]

Sorry...1 of the last 3 years.

And they've been up front in the other 2.

[bill boyes]

Bill
What 'parity' committee?? The only parity committee in existance is in DSH? And perhaps they should be removed and in it's place replaced with a party committee!!

See you in Seattle!!

Matt, Just a joke between Tim And I. I was trying to be funny.