Stock Outboard agenda for Los Angeles

[Jeff Brewster 59s]

Please contact your local Stock Outboard Commissioner with any thoughts.

[pav225]

Thanks for posting Jeff. Looks like it should be a good meeting.
- Mike

[guedo499]

Out of curiosity, I setup four of my Yamato hydros tonight and measured from the back of the boat to the front of the LU. The 2 Hemp style and the Pavlick were both well inside of the 5", more around the 3.5-4" range. The fourth boat is within 2" from the back of the boat. Only the boat with the extra close setting has major trouble pumping (self-induced but last test session I found a prop that pumped and was fast - rake most definitely matters). I'm wondering out-loud what others measure at, and what the thought-process was to the 5" set-back? If passed, I would need to re-build two, possibly three transoms (one transom already is setback 3/4" with spacers).

With respect, John.

[csh-2z]

While I'm not in favor of a setback or tuck rule, there is something to be learned from this conversation. The further forward your motor is to the trailing edge of the bottom, the faster you will go, however it is harder to get water to the motor. Based on all the variables in set up, driver position, lead location, airtrap depth etc. There is a sweet spot for motor position and it will be different based on those variables, you just have to find it.
I'm sure, John, that you know this but many others may not.

[Hydro doc]

If the 321 is one mile faster than the other motors, do we all run to the store and buy a new motor? One of the great attributes of the Y motors is they are durable. They are junk if a new motor is faster. We have three 302's. most likely a larger hole will solve the cooling problem, as show by test done last week in Florida. It takes at least 35lbs to slow a boat one mile an hour. If you did not allow the head to be cut, would that produce parity? It didn't make sense to allow a stock motor to have no measurements on the head in the first place.

[Hydro doc]

Testing with cool tool (water pickup) has in testing cools the motor and slows you down a bit. Enlarging the hole doesn't work quite as well and testing was done in 62 degree water. We race in 85 degree water, so maybe we need testing in hotter water if we are only going to run an enlarge hole. We have seen fast speeds even when the motor is hot, so cooling too cool may not be the fastest. I'm leaning toward allowing both. The hole should be large enough to cool and inspectable. The external water pickup should not be inspected and you can have any thing that works for you. One guy built one for $6. It may slow you down but over time a cheap one will surface. With out a cool tool a 321 tower will not cool well in the 1/2 inch range, while the 80 does. Since the amount of tuck(angle of motor) effects the height of the intake hole, it is an advantage to place it as deep as you can without effecting your acceration. This drives the nose of the boat down. Let's all learn from each other and have a open mind, because there is still allot to learn.

[burl11]

John,

Just checked my Runnecraft 20 with a Y-80, the distance is exactly 6" as raced, so no impact on my setup. That's not to say all Runne hydros are the same.

[dholt]

Please post email contact for all stock commissioners

[csh-2z]

j.runne@hotmail.com

[halestorm]

https://www.apba.org/resources?title...ce_type_tid=94

[seanp3]

Out of curiosity, I setup four of my Yamato hydros tonight and measured from the back of the boat to the front of the LU. The 2 Hemp style and the Pavlick were both well inside of the 5", more around the 3.5-4" range. The fourth boat is within 2" from the back of the boat. Only the boat with the extra close setting has major trouble pumping (self-induced but last test session I found a prop that pumped and was fast - rake most definitely matters). I'm wondering out-loud what others measure at, and what the thought-process was to the 5" set-back? If passed, I would need to re-build two, possibly three transoms (one transom already is setback 3/4" with spacers).

With respect, John.

John, my boat is similar. I don't mind the 3/4" tuck rule. But the setback rule will put my boat out of racing. Even if I rebuild the transom to accommodate the rule it will upset the balance of the boat and will be a handful to keep it on the water.

[Big Don]

Ok, here is what we know.

Lot's of Yamato drivers want the ability to provide additional cooling to their engines.
Some do not want us to do anything.
Some want a setback rule.
Some want a tuck rule.
Some want a setback and a tuck rule.
Some want us to do a height rule and lower all Yamato's.
Some want just the "Cool Tool"
Some just want us to drill out the current pick up holes.
Some want us to allow the Cool Tool and the drilling.
Some want us to just allow the Cool Tool on 321's.
Some just want us to allot the Cool Tool on 321's & 302's.
Some want us ....you get the point, I could list 100 different opinions.

Here is what I know. What ever we do, it's going to tick off 40% of the drivers. Someone is not going to be happy and say we are a bunch of idiots.

[csh-2z]

I think we can tick off more than 40%. Think positive!

[Brian10s]

Agree with John - aim higher. 40% is way to low. You guys can pull 40% before you board the planes to LA. I'm guessing 70 - 80% if you really commit to the process and give it your all.

[csh-2z]

Thanks for believing in us Brian. It means a lot to us.

[jsilvestri]

Whatever the SORC decides I hope they think about not making it any more difficult for us Inspectors. Getting boats through inspection in a timely manner, even at a weekend club race, is getting tough!

[Hydro doc]

A drill .291 can be used to check hole. It is not checked except at championship races as I have seen. Just make sense to allow the same size hole as the 302.

[dholt]

Think about what is the easiest to implement, easiest to inspect, easiest to regulate, involves the least amount of time by the driver to implement and least expensive solution. Do that and the answer is pretty simple.

[Big Don]

So do nothing. Got it.

[guedo499]

Out of all of the proposed solutions for the perceived, manipulated, or actual Yamato pumping issue, what is the only method that 100% guarantees a solution? Do that and the answer is pretty simple.

[Big Don]

None of these suggestion have been proven in race conditions. Everyone of them is a gamble. What may work for the drivers up front may not help the driver in 11th.

[dholt]

The answer is on your list, Don. The 499 sees it too.

[dholt]

True, none have been tested in race conditions...which are markedly different than testing.
But the tube can't fail if you got it sticking down 2 inches below the snout (just an example depth...place it wherever it works on your own rig).

[Matt Dagostino]

Big Don............maybe our 321 from Yamato of Europe just isn't up to par with the one's in Michigan? You and i both know you can blueprint a dozen Yamato 80's for example and there will be a mph or so difference from the best to the worse. As far as midsection testing i know Val and i saw no difference in race speeds at Tabor City when Jerry Davids and Howie (yes the same Howie that validated the Florida data) swapped midsections out at the race! Same day within a hour or so (not several hours). Also Tim Weber in the course of gathering cooling data found about .3 to .4th of a difference in top end during his CSR testing when he swapped the midsections out. He thinks that miner difference could have been water conditions etc etc. The important data point he provided was the 40 plus degree midsection difference!! Sooooooo, not sure we want to upset the apple cart yet over a few tenths one way or another. Again, much more data is needed to make the kind of 'parity' adjustment you may suggest. Hasty decisions based on just a couple folks data is what gets us into trouble. Perhaps YOU as a senior member of the SORC insist a 'task force' funded by the SORC be put together designed to test the currently produced 321 midsection vs 302 midsections. Have several teams from around the country do identical testing and report back to the task force with the data for ALL to see then make a informed decision. Put the data on Hydroracer and the APBA website and be transparent.That's what the Cool Team did on it's own to help solve a REAL problem..... Val and i look forward to seeing you in LA. She said she looks forward to discussing the 'fake news' you implied she provided.....I wouldn't want to be you...)))

[Big Don]

Matt, tell Val, and I'll tell her, I was not accusing her or anyone of fake news. Maybe Joe's data was flawed along with the 300 drivers that claim their 321 was faster then their 302's. I'm not being an a$$ here. I'm just saying we have conflicting information. I'm good with not doing anything. I'm good with not even putting a cool tube on or with drilling. I'm old school and think that is part of racing but understand it's not 1980 any more and thing change. My intention was not to offend anyone or question anyone's ability to test. I was trying to point out that nothing is easy and everyone has their opinion. Maybe saying I don't trust your data was the wrong word. Maybe I should have said your info is conflicting to other data.

So for the record for everyone. Here is what I want to pass.

Allow any cool tube a person desires, any location, any size, any manufacture. This will allow the racers that want to test 100 different combinations the ability to do so. That is what I feel part of racing is about. The ability to out work the next person.

Allow drilling of the water pick up holes.

Yes a person could do both.

No set back rule, no tuck rule.

[Matt Dagostino]

Big Don............apology accepted. Your solution should please most! Let's do it and all just get along again!