2010 SO Agenda

[Trihedral_1]

Instead of complaining about a new height rule in 20ss, I posted a much more inexpensive way to keep motors cool.

We really like going for records, and if passed, 3/4 inch just isn't going to be any fun.

Jimi O (305-R)

[Matt Dagostino]

Agenda Item............

I don't find my weight that interesting. Quit poking fun at me.

I believe weights will be under new business! I am sure Ross will find a place for it!

[seanp3]

Instead of complaining about a new height rule in 20ss, I posted a much more inexpensive way to keep motors cool.

We really like going for records, and if passed, 3/4 inch just isn't going to be any fun.

Jimi O (305-R)

I agree with Jimi. Leave the 20ssh height rule alone

[Tim Weber]

I noticed that lifting rails are going to be asked for approval in DSR. Well,
if DSR is approved then then all of stock should be approved for their use.

The lifting rails are legal in all the Pro and Mod classes. When you have to lift a big boat to start the motor, it sure makes it easier and safer. You don't have to stand right next to the motor. In fact, this would be a good rule adoption under safety just like height restrictions.

I would suggest setting dimensions on them, maybe no more than 18" or 20" in lenght and 1 1/2" deep.

Funny thing about lifting rails. I remember Fred Miller had those on his C & D runabouts back in the 80's. Also, Dave Bryan's CSR had them too. I don't remember anyone making a fuss about it then.

Tim

[mercguy]

DSH class............

how about removing the current height restriction on the Tohatsu and make it the same as the 44XS........................dont need the Parity Committee anymore........

[DebStoner]

Thank you Eddie!

[ricochet112]

ooops duplicate

[ricochet112]

This is the current tentative agenda. Happy reading.

To simplify inspection and our rule book; why not make ALL Stock hydros (except J & A) have a prop shaft height of 3/4"? It will be safer and make inspection so much simpler. 25SSH & DSH running level don't have a lot of control (well DSH has some...). Or at least make 25SSH & DSH have a 1/2" height.

Flame suit on!

[jeff55v]

Or at least make 25SSH & DSH have a 1/2

Ask a few Tohatsu drivers how they like driving @ 1/2". Most if not all, will tell you handling is improved @ 0".

Nothing wrong with trying to simplify things. I would rather see us go back to the J,A,B,C,D only classes to simplify things.

My flame suit is ready also.

[ricochet112]

Ask a few Tohatsu drivers how they like driving @ 1/2". Most if not all, will tell you handling is improved @ 0".

Nothing wrong with trying to simplify things. I would rather see us go back to the J,A,B,C,D only classes to simplify things.

My flame suit is ready also.

I know DSH doesn't need any tweaking (myabe just the same height between the Merc and Tohatsu) I added D as a pun.

Both of my 25SSH records were set at or below 1/2" anyway, works for me.

[mercguy]

I know DSH doesn't need any tweaking (myabe just the same height between the Merc and Tohatsu) I added D as a pun.

Both of my 25SSH records were set at or below 1/2" anyway, works for me.

"maybe just the same height between the Merc and Tohatsu"

..............I concur............."level" the playing field..........

[Fast Jack]

Dsh

And to make it easy for the Mercs just let the Tohatsu run "0" -(Just like the Merc).

[Thomas Racing]

I recently purchased two 80 motors, a couple of props, and a 20 hydro. If I had known that there were plans in the works to penalize the 80 motors, I would not have purchased this equipment.

The 80 motor develops 30hp/7000rpm with a maximum torque of 24.6 ft/lbs. The 302 develops 33hp/6600rpm with a maximum torque of 26.8 ft/lbs. If the height requirement on the 80 is reduced by 1/4", then the effect would be to lose between 100 to 200 rpm's. There is no way that the 80 can overcome the inherent torque advantage of the 302.

I recently returned to racing after being out of it for many years. The 20 class was my class of choice, however, I wanted to support both the 20 and C classes. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the direction that the 20 class is heading. Unfortunately, there are those who have their own agendas at heart and are willing to bring about the demise of the 20 motor in order to satisfy their own ambitions.

Why don't we leave the 80 motor alone and let it run its natural course.

-- Mel Thomas

[thepiranhabros]

I recently purchased two 80 motors, a couple of props, and a 20 hydro. If I had known that there were plans in the works to penalize the 80 motors, I would not have purchased this equipment.

The 80 motor develops 30hp/7000rpm with a maximum torque of 24.6 ft/lbs. The 302 develops 33hp/6600rpm with a maximum torque of 26.8 ft/lbs. If the height requirement on the 80 is reduced by 1/4", then the effect would be to lose between 100 to 200 rpm's. There is no way that the 80 can overcome the inherent torque advantage of the 302.

I recently returned to racing after being out of it for many years. The 20 class was my class of choice, however, I wanted to support both the 20 and C classes. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the direction that the 20 class is heading. Unfortunately, there are those who have their own agendas at heart and are willing to bring about the demise of the 20 motor in order to satisfy their own ambitions.

Why don't we leave the 80 motor alone and let it run its natural course.

-- Mel Thomas

Hear hear!

Michael Mackey
21-V
<i>NOT a Y-80 owner, BTW!</i>

[seanp3]

I recently purchased two 80 motors, a couple of props, and a 20 hydro. If I had known that there were plans in the works to penalize the 80 motors, I would not have purchased this equipment.

The 80 motor develops 30hp/7000rpm with a maximum torque of 24.6 ft/lbs. The 302 develops 33hp/6600rpm with a maximum torque of 26.8 ft/lbs. If the height requirement on the 80 is reduced by 1/4", then the effect would be to lose between 100 to 200 rpm's. There is no way that the 80 can overcome the inherent torque advantage of the 302.


Why don't we leave the 80 motor alone and let it run its natural course.

-- Mel Thomas

Your analysis is slightly flawed as your hp and torque info is for the unrestricted 302. The Y80 already kicks the restricted 302's butt in corners, especially tight corners. Dropping both motors will actually give the Y80 more of an advantage in my opinion. However, I'm with you on this one. Leave the height alone. I'm seeing very few overheating issues with the height rule as it is.