Stock Outboard rules update

[csh2z]

Bill,
That was more of a housekeeping issue. A clarification of the wording but no change in the affect of the rule.

[Apachemax]

And the reason for this is there must be a million places that make parts for the small block Chevy where would it be if no one made parts for it. I have four Hotrods on the motor rack right now

There are people willing to make sought after parts that are not being allowed too.

[SeaBat]

John,
Unfortunately there is a difference on some, if not most, Soresen Jackals. It is possible to meet the legal overall width requirement but be slightly over the shear line. the shear line on the fin side is not like the non fin side. It is altered to accomondate the fin mounting (my assumption) and then assumes the same shape as the non fin side and becomes the maximum width. The difference is slight but it would be a disqualification. Hope this sheds some light on the reason for my question.
Bill Thomas

[HydroKyle93R]

Safety Rule 3.9 Side Fins

Bill-
I proposed this "housekeeping" issue, however I have been told there is no change to the current rule.

After taking a good look at the wording of the rule, I found that a fin could be mounted anywhere within the maximum beam, including hardware, and fasteners. One option was change the wording from "maximum beam" to "shear line where mounted" in order to clean up the parameters defining the legality of turn fins; to make it more black-and-white. Essentially, the maximum beam of the hull is its widest point, port to starboard, and that dimension does not always coincide with the beam-dimension where a fin is mounted. Thus, according to the rule, as long as a fin was within the maximum beam parameter, regardless of whether it protruded from the shear line, is a legal fin.

[csh2z]

Here is the rule directly from the latest rulebook.

9. A permanently fixed fin or fins may be used on the hull. With the exception of PRO runabouts, 750cc Mod Runabouts and 850cc Mod Runabouts, no boats raced in MO, PRO and SO may have a fin or mounting hardware that protrudes beyond the chine [shear line] of the hull where mounted. Turning fins and turning fin brackets on 750cc Mod Runabout, 850cc Mod Runabout, and PRO runabouts may not protrude more than one (1) inch beyond the chine of the hull where mounted, except when directly mounted to the transom. Any boat participating in PRO 125R, 175R, 250R, 350R, 500R, 1100R, 125H, 175H, 250H, 350H, 500H, 700H, or 1100H must have a fin or fin bracket bolted to the boat using a minimum of four (4) bolts.

[SeaBat]

John,
The reason I asked this question was that I did read the latest Rule Change from maximum width to chine (shear line). I wondered how I could have missed it in the National Meeting minutes. It isn't there! It wasn't discussed or voted on according to the Minutes. I have no objection to the new Safety Rule. I think it's a good rule, but, I do object to the way it was refered to as "house keeping issue". In my life time I seen much mischief done classified as house cleaning. I guess it hit my hot button. I didn't mean to rile up people, just try to keep everything in the open and transparent. Just vote on it at the next Conference Call and all is good.
Bill

[csh2z]

Bill,
It's interesting you mentioned your suspicion about "housekeeping issues" and the perception of subtle changes in our rules over the years. I share your concern. In this case however, the wording was a little confusing due to exceptions for certain classes. Often when writing a rule you're so focussed on the subject you lose perspective of the context and the wording becomes convoluted. When it is brought to your attention you have a "duh" moment when you realize that what you've written isn't as clear as it could be.
We've seen many rules mysteriously disappear from the book without commissions voting on them. Much of this occurred when the outboard categories were combined in the rulebook, which I have always believed was a huge mistake. Instead of simplifying our book we made it more confusing for all of us. Now that our rulebook is on line, I'd like to see it separated again. Each category deserves its individual identity.
Thanks for your input. We need these reminders every once in a while to let us know people are paying attention to the details.

[Dave M]

Agree John

Bill,
We've seen many rules mysteriously disappear from the book without commissions voting on them. Much of this occurred when the outboard categories were combined in the rulebook, which I have always believed was a huge mistake. Instead of simplifying our book we made it more confusing for all of us. Now that our rulebook is on line, I'd like to see it separated again. Each category deserves its individual identity.
Thanks for your input. We need these reminders every once in a while to let us know people are paying attention to the details.

John, I believe that very thing (combination of general & Safety Rules) has caused more harm than good. While the initial intentions were not malicious in any way, I think the end result is the current discombobulation.