SO Yamato Rule Changes

[Matt Dagostino]

Pat..................

Sorry about the changing of gears. Ed must have forgotten in 1990 when the commission flat out banned the 30h in C Stock class to make way for the 102 Yamato to be the sole motor in the class. A decision I agreed with as a sidebar!

I had won the National Championship in CSH in 1987, 1988 and 1989. I guess they figured they had seen enough of Harold Barnes powered Merc's. My point is I think it foolish to think true parity can be met in any of our classes where multiple motors are legal. Ed is right in that with after market parts for the 102's being approved it will 'never' go away. The Commish needs to either put a moritorium on the 102 to clear the way for the 302 or 'spice' up the 302 so it will be faster than the current 102 and the 102 will go away like the 55h did when the Merc 44xs was legalized!!

The Hijacker

[Cameraboy]

The 102 will not die a natural death. We are already approving after-market parts for this engine and I have no problem with that. But there have to be actions taken to ensure that the 302 and the 102 can BOTH win. That way, the new guy will have no hesitation in buying the new engine when it comes time to try to win.

Ed, I have people out here telling me to ditch the 102 because the 302 is faster. When you say ensure that both can win - do you mean at Nationals? Is there any Region in the country that the 102 dominates? And is it really the motor, or is it the prop/hull/set-up?

Let me ask again - I would like to hear more about this 1,500' or 1,000' buoy at Nationals. Why is it different from what is required of a regional or divisional course? If there is a safety need to stretch the field out before the first turn, then why do we allow 12 boats in a heat? Wouldn't the same thing be accomplished by a wider radius turn?

[dholt]

Ed,

Before considering rule changes to help the 302, maybe we (SORC) should get some word from Yamato on how much longer that engine will be produced. What does Montoya have to say? What's on the horizon across the pond?

And if engines being available for sale (on pallets) was a viable reason for getting rid of old, hard to find engines in 1986...then why wouldn't that same reasoning hold true today?

At some point, the Sidewinder 'A', '15' and 20ci 'B' will be produced...ready for sale...on pallets. Does that mean it makes sense to scrap the old engines then?

I know your answer...'no'. But why? I bet Ron Selewach would prefer having the entire market demanding his engines rather than a fraction. Makes more sense for him to spend money and produce engines/parts when there is the most demand. Think OMC would have been on board in mid 80's if they hadn't been promised the entire 'A' membership would be buying their engines?

[14-H]

Ed,

Before considering rule changes to help the 302, maybe we (SORC) should get some word from Yamato on how much longer that engine will be produced. ***

Dana: Yamato has never revealed this type of information previously. I agree with you it would be helpful. I just don't think we will ever get it.

***At some point, the Sidewinder 'A', '15' and 20ci 'B' will be produced...ready for sale...on pallets. ***?

I do not believe you are correct about this. While the Hot Rod will be produced, there will never be a warehouse full of them waiting to be shipped. If I'm wrong, I'll reconsider my position on this. But I rather think that the new Hot Rod will depend on people still being able to run the old engines in order to have people to race against. I will agree, however, that the New Hot Rod, once it is released, should not be relegated to a second class engine such that Blue Champions always win the nationals. That is where I see the problem in CSH.

Add: I reserve the right to paint my sidewinder Champion Blue, though. It is still a Hot Rod. Ed.

[mercguy]

302's

Ed,

Before considering rule changes to help the 302, maybe we (SORC) should get some word from Yamato on how much longer that engine will be produced. What does Montoya have to say? What's on the horizon across the pond?

And if engines being available for sale (on pallets) was a viable reason for getting rid of old, hard to find engines in 1986...then why wouldn't that same reasoning hold true today?

At some point, the Sidewinder 'A', '15' and 20ci 'B' will be produced...ready for sale...on pallets. Does that mean it makes sense to scrap the old engines then?

I know your answer...'no'. But why? I bet Ron Selewach would prefer having the entire market demanding his engines rather than a fraction. Makes more sense for him to spend money and produce engines/parts when there is the most demand. Think OMC would have been on board in mid 80's if they hadn't been promised the entire 'A' membership would be buying their engines?

I was over at Montoya's on Monday and he say by the end of the year, he will have pretty close to 100 302'2 in stock, he already has about 50 of them now, waiting for people to buy them. He figured at the current rate, he will have enough 302's to supply the need for the next 5yrs!

[14-H]

I was over at Montoya's on Monday and he say by the end of the year, he will have pretty close to 100 302'2 in stock, he already has about 50 of them now, waiting for people to buy them. He figured at the current rate, he will have enough 302's to supply the need for the next 5yrs!

Nothing would be better for kneeldown racing for those 100 engines to be sold in the next 6 months and all of the 102's that are replaced by them fall into the hands of someone just looking for a first ride.

[mercguy]

I agree with Ed...........

Tony is right: the reference to AXS was only an analogy. I don't agree with outlawing any engines. In 1986 it made sense because racing motors were sitting on pallets waiting to be purchased. That's not true anymore.

I do believe, however, that it is the job of the SORC for the good of the category to ensure that people who want to buy engines because they want to win are not being told "don't buy one of the new ones, you have to look for one of those obsolete ones to win." That is the current perception in CSH and you guys are sticking your heads in the sand if you deny this.

The 102 will not die a natural death. We are already approving after-market parts for this engine and I have no problem with that. But there have to be actions taken to ensure that the 302 and the 102 can BOTH win. That way, the new guy will have no hesitation in buying the new engine when it comes time to try to win.

Patrick: I'm still laughing about the alert. Ed.

let all current racing motors that are no longer being produced, to die naturally. Racing is not like it was 15yrs ago. Banning motors right now will definately create a BIG LOSS of racing members. What would the guy that has about $10,000 invested in a 102 program do, if the motors were no longer "legal" engines to do...........loose his ass????

[14-H]

Ed, I have people out here telling me to ditch the 102 because the 302 is faster. ***?

All's I can say is that JMichael Kelly could have run a 302, he could have run a 102, he could have even run a 202 in Alexandria. He set the record with a 102.

I have never signed an application for a record as the Chairman (I believe) in CSH for a 302.

The 302 has never won the SO short course nationals in CSH.

I don't know what else to say. Ed.

[reed28n]

plan

I think you are all leading up to the fact we need a PLAN to go forward.

If you have $10,000 in the 102 program you have already lost your ass. That same $10,000 would insure that the 302 surpasses the 102. If you have two motors in your trailer it is just easier to run the one you have the boat for, the one you have the prop for, the one you have tested the most.

But I guarantee if the 302 was the only motor.....,within a year, somone would be taping on the door of the C record with or without the 1500ft run to the first turn. It is the natural evolution of racers you just have to beat that other guy.

[Charlie Pater]

It would be interesting to know if the old 30H could compete at the current Yamato prop shaft depth. I doubt it.

[drbyrne55]

Engine height?

As a newbie I still do not understand the 1/2 CSH rule and why it is there.

1. Engine overheating ..... that would be up to boat owner to take the chance.

2. Safety issue..... "0" inch depth makes the boat handling less safe.... is what I am told. But in my limited experience, OVERTUCKING results in more safety issues than raising the prop vertically. I am told there is no tucking rule in CSH but exists in other classes and this rule was for safety? Is that true?

3. Shaving gear case height? So what, if your prop is at "0", or "1/2" that is where it is by measurement. Does "shaving" a gear case offer anything but allow the overall center of gravity to be lowered? Does shaving the gearcase violate SO specs? Was this just innovation if it did not violate specs?


I am not suggesting a rule change ... just trying understand why the 1/2 rule came about and where it came from. From a stand point of vector forces it seems overtucking creates a much more dangerous situation?

Thanks for helping me understand,
Dan

[DougMc]

All's I can say is that JMichael Kelly could have run a 302, he could have run a 102, he could have even run a 202 in Alexandria. He set the record with a 102.

I thought he ran and set the OSY 3/4 record with a 302 in Alexandria?

[mercguy]

I think you are all leading up to the fact we need a PLAN to go forward.

If you have $10,000 in the 102 program you have already lost your ass. That same $10,000 would insure that the 302 surpasses the 102. If you have two motors in your trailer it is just easier to run the one you have the boat for, the one you have the prop for, the one you have tested the most.

But I guarantee if the 302 was the only motor.....,within a year, somone would be taping on the door of the C record with or without the 1500ft run to the first turn. It is the natural evolution of racers you just have to beat that other guy.

how do you figure I have already lost my ass Scott???? (2) very good 102's, props and a boat built for a 102.....close to $10,000. One motor runs better on short courses and the other runs better on longer courses, along with the associated props. Anyways, back to the subject matter, I think the rules for CSH should stay as they are for BOTH the 302 and 102, as their is no need to handicap a 102 and give an advantage to the 302's in way of a rule change, etc. There are 5 smokin' fast 302's out here in Reg10 (Kelly, Perman, Peters, Bahl, Nilsen) that I can think of, off the top of my head, that I have a hell of a time trying to catch or beat on the rare occassion and my 102H runs pretty good (at times!). Let the class goes as it has so far, just like CSR has, of which most people have made the switch to 302's in CSR (on their own, not being FORCED to!), which seem to dominate that class. Isn't that what you guys want?

[mercguy]

As a newbie I still do not understand the 1/2 CSH rule and why it is there.

1. Engine overheating ..... that would be up to boat owner to take the chance.

2. Safety issue..... "0" inch depth makes the boat handling less safe.... is what I am told. But in my limited experience, OVERTUCKING results in more safety issues than raising the prop vertically. I am told there is no tucking rule in CSH but exists in other classes and this rule was for safety? Is that true?

3. Shaving gear case height? So what, if your prop is at "0", or "1/2" that is where it is by measurement. Does "shaving" a gear case offer anything but allow the overall center of gravity to be lowered? Does shaving the gearcase violate SO specs? Was this just innovation if it did not violate specs?


I am not suggesting a rule change ... just trying understand why the 1/2 rule came about and where it came from. From a stand point of vector forces it seems overtucking creates a much more dangerous situation?

Thanks for helping me understand,
Dan

1) it still is up to the driver in making his height setup, but is limited to 1/2"

2) the tucking issue exists only in the OMC 15 classes, since people were jacking and tucking to get the "bullet" out of the water, in short definition. People still "tuck" in other classes, as well.

3) shaving the gearcase basically has nothing to do with lowering the center of gravity (only a very few did that), but "streamlining" the shape of the case. You can "shave", but it still has to meet "specs" for the class. All of these "modifications" that are allowed, as brought about so that each owner of a Yamato would have the ability to make their motor the same as the next guys, due to manufacturing variances. BUT, alot of it has gone to far. What Ed has stated is that these "modifications" have put the motor FAR from "stock", which is what the class is supposed to be. Hell, I bet most of the "stock" guys have more money into their "stock motors" (i.e, blueprinting, etc) than some of the "mod guys" have into their engines and that is not the intent of the class. But, since all these motors are "production built", the engines will never be identical and YES, one motor will be faster than another.

[reed28n]

$10,000

A little humor was intended, I haven't spent anywhere near $10,000 as far as my wife knows..... even at that price our racing is a bargain...... less than the price of a jet ski.. and you could do alot worse than kneel down racing for a lot more money.

Scott