SO Yamato Rule Changes

[stu_racing]

Doug,
the external water pick-up makes the class more economical and saves the engine parts that much longer. I think it has been shown that it takes a specific hull design and propellor to pump water at the limit. For those people coming into the class that can't afford a brand new hull that will allow them to run at the limit with no problems, then this external pick-up is a cheap fix until they can afford to buy a new hull. They are at a slight disadvantage pointed out by Mike Ross, that they will most likely lose 1mph in top end compared to those who run a Y302 at the max height without an external pick-up. And this pick-up also means people don't have to run a borderline set-up for overheating their motors if they are at the limit, so they can save on refreshing their motor every winter, freeing up more parts for more years.

[Brian10s]

To all

My responses:
Bill - I am not proposing of anything, just adding some thought to the discussion. As Scott Reed and others ahve said earlier, the 302 will dominate (if it is not already there) in the near future so why mess with trying to gain parity. We might be close as it is, already. I will also point out that on my 102, I can't pump consistantly at 1/2 with all props. Pumping has to do greatly with water conditions and props, along with boat/ transom angle, etc. So that said, yes, if something was decided to be done in the name of maintenance and durability, then I would say do it to both the 102 & 302.

John - you are correct, that a speedo pick is cheap and easy. My point was once you decide to change the factory water pickup method, why not address other limitations in the same stroke. The Mod gearfoot method of water pickup is proven to increase water flow, as well as drivability. When you are making a major change, why not go all the way. And a change to the water delivery method is major, so if we did it, why not make the engine drive better while we are at it.

Doug - while the 302 vs 102 dominance has been discussed at great length, I have no answer for you on which has won. I still think quite a lot of people are still working that out. Let's agree that they are close for now and move on.

My point was if everyone was so worried about cooking the engines (both 102 & 302), and had to change the water delivery method, why not make a bigger improvement while we are at it.

[csh2z]

Brian, Why would you want to spend $600. - $700. on redoing a gearfoot when you can spend $20. to accomplish the same goal? Once you open that door in order to stay competitive everybody would have to do it on all of there gearfeet. I've got 3 motors, that would be nearly $2000. That's 4 races I can no longer afford to go to. I've been running an external water pick-up on my B-Mod for two years and it has saved me a pile of money in repair costs while keeping my motor strong & competitive. To maintain the same kind of success in CSH, between my 102 and Ryans 302 we've had to rering our motors 5 times this year. Bear in mind, we want to win, so any drop-off in performance was addressed. That is what we had to do in order to win. John 2-Z

[drbyrne55]

Keep rules as is....

Here's the deal...hope this clears it up.

For the Y 102, 302 and 80 there are certain specs on the gearcase. Overall thickness, radius at leading edge, skeg shape, and more.

Everyone who wants to run fast would have their gearcase shaped to those tolerances.

But there was no spec on the overall height of the gearcase...from the bottom of the skeg to the top of case...where it bolts onto the towerhousing.

Some (it was believed) were shaving the TOP! of the case...thus reducing the overall height of the gearcase. So, when you bolt it onto the towerhousing, the prop shaft is now higher. HIGHER prop shaft means faster speeds. So, a 1/2" height rule for prop shaft in relation to bottom of boat was enacted to take away the advantage of shaving top of case.

thanks dholt....
I guess I don't understand why someone shave the gearcase instead of just blocking the motor up 1/2 inch when it was legal to run "0" shaft depth unless there was a limit on transom height.

I guess my point seems to be that a lot racers stongly feel that CSH, not OSY, is currently dominated at nationals by the 102. This seems to bring up parity issues. It seems the 1/2 rule was brought about to slow down the 302?

I really DON"T want any rule changes as I just bought my first Hydro last August. Changing rules would just add complexity. Current rules allow a newbie to get in cheap and be boat competitive maybe not driver competitive(me).

I bought a boat for $850.... and a 302. Throwing the set up together other drivers showed it was competitve in CSH and OSY(won a heat) in the first weekend of racing.

If shaving the gearcase was not against rules .... was this not innovation? Are there rules regarding props that I should know about ... other than I've been told they legally need to be 3 bladed?

Anyway I am having fun getting ready to run the restricted 20 class and other drivers can use my set up for CSH and OSY .....

Sometimes innovation goes against current modality. I could see how one person could see both reshaping foot and shaving the case height as legal (within specified rules) and another person think either the above as modifying a Stock engine.....

Dan

[22W]

Ok Dan, lemme help you out. On a Yamato, the water pickup is behind the prop as a permanent part of the TOWER HOUSING. Therefore, people were allegedly shaving the top of the GEARCASE to effectively get the water pickup closer to the water while keeping the propshaft at the same height. That should help you understand what these guys are talking about.

Burdick

[Brian10s]

Brian, Why would you want to spend $600. - $700. on redoing a gearfoot when you can spend $20. to accomplish the same goal? Once you open that door in order to stay competitive everybody would have to do it on all of there gearfeet. I've got 3 motors, that would be nearly $2000. That's 4 races I can no longer afford to go to. I've been running an external water pick-up on my B-Mod for two years and it has saved me a pile of money in repair costs while keeping my motor strong & competitive. To maintain the same kind of success in CSH, between my 102 and Ryans 302 we've had to rering our motors 5 times this year. Bear in mind, we want to win, so any drop-off in performance was addressed. That is what we had to do in order to win. John 2-Z

John,
I never said I wanted to do anything, just put out there that since we are considering change, why not go all the way. If you want to keep your engines from cooking, I have a even cheaper way. 65 cents of clear tubing that runs from the exit hose on the motor, up the steering cable and taped to the deck. That way you can just look down right past the throttle and know if it is pumping or not. It's the cheapest way to keep a motor from cooking and you do not need a rule change to do it. I have been doing it for years and have yet to cook anything (of course I have had to pull off once to twice but would rather waste entry fee than a motor).
The suggestion was not about cost but rather since the discussion was to change the water pickup method, why not fix the other limitation and make the motor drive better. As in the mod classes, there is no madatory way to do either, as you do it one way and others do it a different way.

If cost is such an issue, why do we allow the gearfoot's to be shaved, the ports changed, the heads shaved and all the other "tricks" of the out front runners?

[drbyrne55]

Ok Dan, lemme help you out. On a Yamato, the water pickup is behind the prop as a permanent part of the TOWER HOUSING. Therefore, people were allegedly shaving the top of the GEARCASE to effectively get the water pickup closer to the water while keeping the propshaft at the same height. That should help you understand what these guys are talking about.

Burdick

Thanks Ryan .....
I get it now .... clever.

Now that what I call reshaping a foot

But it was actually legal ... correct?

So if reshaping the foot (gearcase) has specs to which one follows and does not specify or reference height .. why don't guy's having cooling problems at 1/2 do the same but keep shaft at 1/2"?
Dan

[17W]

Alternate Water Pick-Up......

This is the only comment I will make on this topic.

If you allow for an alternate water pick-up to be plumbed to the exhaust housing, you have now MODIFIED the engine from STOCK!

If you can not pump water @ 1/2" then find out where you can pump water & start testing!

[ryan_4z]

There is no reason that the 302 cannot be competitive under the current rules. I would guess that the main reason a 302 has not won the Nationals is simply that very few people run them, and have put the work into them that the top 102 drivers have. It should also be mentioned that there has been at least one 302 in the top 5 at the nationals going back to 2000(except maybe 2001). I have finished in the top 3 in nearly every heat I have run all year with a 302, including my first elimination heat at the nationals. I jumped the gun the second heat by about a boat length, and ran out front the entire heat. Here are some 302 credentials this year alone:

1st NE Divisionals-Billy Allen
2nd SE Divisionals-Ryan Runne
4th Nationals-Matt Danfort

In addition to all this Billy, Matt, and Chris Mizener also consistently run in the top three everywhere they go.

Given this information, in addition to what is being said by the west coast drivers, I think it would be foolish to make any rule changes in CSH to attempt parity. Additionally, as a 302 driver, I would like to sincerely request that no rule changes be made to advantage the 302. I do not want victory handed to me on a silver platter. I prefer to earn it.

All that being said, I see no reason not to allow an external water pickup. I do not suggest this for parity reasons, as I have no problem running my 302 at height. The reason this should be considered is simply to save motors and parts. It is very easy to run a hose into the back of the powerhead, and eliminate the whole overheating problem. This is not a speed advantage(in fact its a disadvantage), and all it really does is make up for a poor original design.

On the issue of the 1500' run to the first turn. The rule, as a safety rule is completely bogus. I don't see fields stretching out in that extra 500'. We run stretches half that length on a weekend to weekend basis, and don't see any more accidents. In fact it could be argued that shortening the run would be safer because the boats would not reach their top speed. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the length of the straightaways at Depue?

[Big Don]

How about this.....

If you are going to allow alternate water pick-up's then do it for all Yamato classes. Every year people are cooking their 20's & 102's..... we have a 20 wheel that is clearly faster than anything else we have in 20 BUT it won't pump water. SO WE DON'T RUN IT.

We currently don't run 302's...so all I can go by is the opinions/comments on here. There seems to be as many that are saying there is no pumping issue so what are we all to believe? We have people saying they can run at level. This is the problem with almost every proposal that is brought before the SORC...conflicting data.

Backus, we are going to want to test your 302 in the spring.

[CSR4C]

I'm glad a race CSR, 3/4" depth with no airtraps the motor pumps just fine. I have raced my 302 over 1000 miles on the same set of pistons. Don't have to worry about sticking pistons, wearing out blocks. Keep the motor cool and it will run forever.
102 - 302 pairity, run them deeper on the hydros, sure works on the runabouts. Sure some of your props will have to be reworked, but everyone will be better off in the long run.

Darrell Sorensen

[reed28n]

OK Wrap it up already

DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING!!!! Please here endeth the thread.....

[14J]

I'm with Scott on this one..........................enough already!

Imagine if this amount of thought and effort went into growing our sport.

[Steve Johnson]

I'm with Scott on this one..........................enough already!

Imagine if this amount of thought and effort went into growing our sport.

DISCO
looks like the drivers have overruled the committee this time

[mercguy]

exactly......

If you are going to allow alternate water pick-up's then do it for all Yamato classes. Every year people are cooking their 20's & 102's..... we have a 20 wheel that is clearly faster than anything else we have in 20 BUT it won't pump water. SO WE DON'T RUN IT.

We currently don't run 302's...so all I can go by is the opinions/comments on here. There seems to be as many that are saying there is no pumping issue so what are we all to believe? We have people saying they can run at level. This is the problem with almost every proposal that is brought before the SORC...conflicting data.

Backus, we are going to want to test your 302 in the spring.

hell, some of the times I get my 102 very close to overheating at 1/2" and know a couple other racers that have the same problem with their 80's. So, either leave the rules as they are now, or allow all the stock Yamato's to run an external water pickup line...........