SO Yamato Rule Changes

[race4kaos]

But, according to KL, the fast West Coast 302's cannot compete with the faster East Coast 102's.....and would have to "steal a start" to even have a chance to win.

correct. data/history support...

[race4kaos]

................I am just a babbling "wannabee" boatracer and know nothing...........

also correct. but maybe more difficult to support with data/history.

[hydroracer25]

Originally Posted by 14-H
When Mark Miskerik moved into 20SSH, which engine did he buy?

When Mark Miskerik moved into CSH, which engine did he buy?

I rest my case.

MARK did not buy any engines if I recall correctly. GARY bought the old motors in each case because they found a couple steals.

Mark doesn't ever test. He knows he would not be a good candidate to up the 302 curve.

Set something up to dangle a carrot to the first 302 Nationals CSH winner. Or take up a collection for Pater to retire his 102's. That would be a better way to make the 302 win than changing the rules...

Since everyone feels so inclined to bring me into the 102/302 discussion, by stating what I've bought and the reasons for it, I might as well tell the whole story.....

First and you asked for it...when I started to race 20SSH I bought Y80s as they were the dominent engine and should be. To refresh everyones memory and to inform those who were not racing at this time, the only reason the 302 is in the 20SSH class is because a proposal was made by commissioner stating that 20SSH was dying in their region and they needed the restricted 302s to make "legal" fields for points. Needless to say it was passed. I personally don't think the 302 should be in 20SSH, but it is and I'm sure it is here to stay (but I'll touch on that in a minute).

As for the CSH program, and I have to correct Kevin on a few points...My dad did buy one complete rig because it was a very good deal. I (myself) (correction #1) purchased a 102 and 302 in what was a "very good deal". I decided to sell the 302 because:
1) I didn't feel it could win the big race (ie. Nationals) w/o luck.
2) because I didn't want to put the time/effort into it to make it what I felt would only be "competitive". This is because I don't have a lot of time to test, however, I DO TEST, not much, but more than NEVER (correction #2)

As for my opinions on 102/302 and class parity in general:
1) I agree that in general the new engine (given the fact that it will have a substantial supply base) should be the prominent (not dominent) engine. So, if they were to say that by '09 or '10 the 302 would be winning I would be OK with that.

2) I don't think the 102 should be phased out, only because there is such a large # of them racing and we can't neglect those members.

3) The whole reason we have so many classes with "parity" messes is due to the lack of new engines for such a long period and a plan to phase out the old ones. Which in my opinion goes back to having a class structue to stick by and making new engine availabilty a priority. I'm not saying that we need new engines every 5 or 10 years, but looking at the supply base and parts becomes a necessity.

4) The only way to achieve true parity in SO (again in my opinion) is to have 1 engine per class. This is the ideal situation, but due to lack of new engines for such a long period of time and any true "factory" support, we've had to balance bringing new engines into SO without eliminating the current motor.
This balance is always a tough issue to deal with and many have different opinions on how it should be handled. I feel that if a new engine comes out and is available (meeting certain criteria for supply), it should become the dominent engine within a given time frame (say 3-5 years) and as long as the membership is aware of the plan they can make provisions to start planning for the new engine. You don't have to elinate the old engine, but most of it will take care of itself (people that want to win will buy the dominent engine over time). The old ones can race still but at a disadvantage until they decide to buy new one or run out of parts.

Mark

[14-H]

***
As for my opinions on 102/302 and class parity in general:
***
Mark

Mark: I don't care about your opinions (just kidding). Because, your actions speak louder than words ever could. Thanks for the imput. Ed.

[14-H]

Kevin...

... are you trying to whack the hornet's nest with a stick intentionally? Your first two posts above are contradictory. Besides, I thought you just drove the stuff and Joe did all the testing. Be quiet! Ed.

[csh12M]

Ed may not race CSH but his friends do.

I have given Ed all the data and experience I have gone through in CSH. I would by no means call myself a race stud...but I have had a pretty good run in CSH with 102's. I started the class with 302 and bought two of them. I tested worked bought at least 6 302 props (one of which is my 102 nats wheel) and in the end could only get to 67 on the GPS. It was good enough to win locally, but I kept getting whooped at the nat's. I started buying a few 102 and immediately got to 67.5. I kept working on both programs 302 and 102 and in the end for me the 102 program beat the 302 program for every reason that John Runne and others have mentioned here. I am by no means advocating anything, except that I have passed all this information on to Ed for evaluation. He is not just guessing or doing something for the sake of doing something. BY ALL MEANS, FOR PERSONAL REASONS...I HOPE NOTHING CHANGES. However, that facts are pretty clear about where the 302 stands Nationally.

Additionally, you can do a ton to that gearcase to make it improve how well you pump water. Bill you called it B.S., it is not! Here is one for you....machine off the top of the gearcase at an angle to point the proshaft more directly at the water pickup hole. See what kind of diffence that makes. If you have never heard or tried that you are way behind. You want to take off the height restriction go for it. I know what to do, and BSH props would be just right if I can run them three laps at 1/4 below the bottom without buring up. Again, all information I have shared with Ed.

Has anyone tested a 102 and 302 gearcases on the same engine 102 or 302. They are not the same....that diameter diff. on the tailcone means something seems to mean something when it comes to propeller daimeter. The one proposal I have never heard that I think could help everything is require everyone to run a 302 geascase, even on a 102. It is very easy to test and may help even the field a bit. It does not cost that much for the 302 gearcases and would help out Montoya a bit. Again, all information I have passsed on to Ed.

AS A CSH RACER WITH A LOT OF 102, I HOPE NOTHING HAPPENS. As someone who cares for the sport, I tend to agree with ED. Look at the finals every year at the Nat's. 102 dominated and no 302 Champions....

[bill boyes]

Geez, Now at 20 pages.
We were never able to run at 1/2 with our old C-21 boat with the 302 or 102.. 3/4 was max. We could not run at 1/2 untill we bought a Bezots. Never tried the 302 with the Bezots because I needed to cut the transom.
Why not just make this debate easy. Just lower the Max height from 1/2 to 3/4. That would help the 302 get water. Heck I know 102 guys overheat at 1/2 at times. This discussion all started about the cooling problem with the 302 did it not? I remember this same discussion at the SORC meeting 10 years ago. Nobody wanted to help out the 302's then, because the 302's were going to make anchors out of the 102's. Thats when the 1/2 inch rule came into effect. I suggested 3/4. The then commission voted 1/2 inch.

[Don11m]

Dont mess with CSH its our biggest class

The SORC should work on the classes with the low numbers not the biggest most successful class we have. Most of the people with fast 102s have a fast 302 just waiting for when its needed. Dont try to fix a class thats not broke......

[bill boyes]

I have given Ed all the data and experience I have gone through in CSH. I would by no means call myself a race stud...but I have had a pretty good run in CSH with 102's. I started the class with 302 and bought two of them. I tested worked bought at least 6 302 props (one of which is my 102 nats wheel) and in the end could only get to 67 on the GPS. It was good enough to win locally, but I kept getting whooped at the nat's. I started buying a few 102 and immediately got to 67.5. I kept working on both programs 302 and 102 and in the end for me the 102 program beat the 302 program for every reason that John Runne and others have mentioned here. I am by no means advocating anything, except that I have passed all this information on to Ed for evaluation. He is not just guessing or doing something for the sake of doing something. BY ALL MEANS, FOR PERSONAL REASONS...I HOPE NOTHING CHANGES. However, that facts are pretty clear about where the 302 stands Nationally.

Additionally, you can do a ton to that gearcase to make it improve how well you pump water. Bill you called it B.S., it is not! Here is one for you....machine off the top of the gearcase at an angle to point the proshaft more directly at the water pickup hole. See what kind of diffence that makes. If you have never heard or tried that you are way behind. You want to take off the height restriction go for it. I know what to do, and BSH props would be just right if I can run them three laps at 1/4 below the bottom without buring up. Again, all information I have shared with Ed.

Has anyone tested a 102 and 302 gearcases on the same engine 102 or 302. They are not the same....that diameter diff. on the tailcone means something seems to mean something when it comes to propeller daimeter. The one proposal I have never heard that I think could help everything is require everyone to run a 302 geascase, even on a 102. It is very easy to test and may help even the field a bit. It does not cost that much for the 302 gearcases and would help out Montoya a bit. Again, all information I have passsed on to Ed.

AS A CSH RACER WITH A LOT OF 102, I HOPE NOTHING HAPPENS. As someone who cares for the sport, I tend to agree with ED. Look at the finals every year at the Nat's. 102 dominated and no 302 Champions....

Dean, Ok i take the BS part back. All my gear cases have had that done. I 'am not convienced that it works. It is a good theory though and I'am not a expert in hydrodynamics.

The 302 vs 102 gear case is another myth. I have broken 2 skegs off my 102's and cracked one on a 302. From reworking NO. Per Goller just a poor casting and age. I'am not the only one who has broken skegs on 102's. Sooner or later you will see more 302 gearcases on 102's. Is a 102 gearcase faster than a 302 gearcase. More debate!! Some say YES. Well not that I could see. Shannon Bowman runs a 302 gearcase on his 102. At Dayton last year I ask him about how much boat speed he lost. He smiled and said none but lost about 50rpm. The 102 and 302 gear cases are the same except the tail cone at the snap ring where there is no measurement. So if one wanted one could file away till into the snap ring grove. Don't try to install a 102 tail cone on a 302 gear case. The threads are not the same. I think I paid $475 for a 302 gear case, changed the shaft and shape another $200.
Just lower the ht to 3/4 inch and be done.

[race4kaos]

Mark, we have different definitions of 'testing'. I believe my statement(s) to hold true.

Ed, I don't believe my posts to contradict themselves if one considers the different sub-sets reffered to. And I said Joe deserves all the credit, not that I didn't do some of the testing. I tested more than most last year despite only racing twice.

Dean, I know you experienced a 'better 102 program'. I think your 302 program ended 5 years ago, prematurely. Also, I think Shannon Bowman may run a 302 lower unit on his 102. I don't consider him to be 'off the pace'. Only a handful of people have won CSR & CSH over the last 10 years. If more of these people ran a 302 at the Nationals, they'd still be my 'favorites' to win. They may just need a carrot...

Don, good statement.

[race4kaos]

Ed,

... are you trying to whack the hornet's nest with a stick intentionally? ... Be quiet! Ed.

i'm sure you're familar with the phrase involving a pot and kettle...

[Brian10s]

I would by no means call myself a race stud...but I have had a pretty good run in CSH

Today's understatement of the day

[drbyrne55]

I'd be happy to. The height restriction was put into place primarily to stop people from shaping the gearcase to direct water up to the water pick up. You see, a few people had figured out how to shape the gear box to force the water to the engine to allow them to run the engine jacked to the moon and thereby run bigger props. The extreme tuck under does the same thing in the A class. The height restriction was put into place to stop the racers from needing to do so much work to conture their gearcases to have this result. But as you can see from one of Darren's posts, it is still necessary to do this even at 1/2 somewhat.

The SORC really screwed up when it allowed the bulge to be taken off of the bottom of that gear case. It has opened a Pandora's Box that can probably never be closed. Ed.

Ed, so if this gearcase was keep within "current legal specs" but racer A could run legally at 1/4 depth or even 0 depth AND be faster than racer B ... why not allow it? (like OSY) Time spent working to get faster is the reward for those willing ... right? When should a rule change be made so others don't need to do so much work?

dan

[Charlie Pater]

From Dean's post

I started the class with 302 and bought two of them. I tested worked bought at least 6 302 props (one of which is my 102 nats wheel) and in the end could only get to 67 on the GPS. It was good enough to win locally, but I kept getting whooped at the nat's.....

Ed - I hope you are not using this data to base your opinions because I can definitely say that Dean gave up on the 302 way too soon.

As I said before, give the 302 guys an incentive to win and they will.

Charlie

[14-H]

Ed, so if this gearcase was keep within "current legal specs" but racer A could run legally at 1/4 depth or even 0 depth AND be faster than racer B ... why not allow it? (like OSY) Time spent working to get faster is the reward for those willing ... right? When should a rule change be made so others don't need to do so much work?

dan

Dan: This is STOCK Outboard. That stuff should only go on in Mod. CSH should not be a legal Pro Class, but that is for another thread. Ed.