850cc Mod proposed rule changes (#8 & #9)

[David_L6]

Do the carbs have to be stock - as in not modified - for the 3 cylinder OMC?

[ER 7J]

There pretty thin back near the throttle valves but if you want to make them bigger you can..another reason why this change is not an issue........
(In my opinion this class needs a max venturi and throat spec as well as a defined reed box to keep the speeds within reason)
Ed Runne

[meanred]

850CC Carbs

The difference in internal air bleeds and jet combinations already exists in the 3 cyl carbs from one production year to the next. That is why everyone seems to have different jet combinations. You can not jet your engine like your competitors unless you have the same part number carbs (the part numbers are not always stamped on the carbs, depends on the year!).
The rule change will make it easier for inspection not provide some secret magical advantage.. if the venturi and throat are the same size it comes down to jetting homework!
Ed Runne

Ed has hit it on the head There is no speed advantage. It just sets a spec on the carbs that you can not go over if you wish to modified your carbs. It also clears up a potential problem in inspection in that as Ed said there is no part #s on some carbs that came on the OMC 49cu. As the other guys have also said testing and doing your homework is what takes to win. Not some magic carb.

I vote Yes!!!!

Jim
7-M

[Dave M]

Clarification

There are carbs out there that nobody else can get hold of. Second Effort produced a few sets, very few sets. If you look on a couple engines closley you will see them. We don't have them, wish we did, might find that extra couple MPH's.

Bottom line is this, there IS an advantage to carbs used. Match up a specific carb to a specific model year and you just might find some work better than others. Is this difference noticable ? I think we are talking maybe a MPH or two, so it is not significant. You can find a MPH or two in testing props.

Why else would there be a need to handicap the engines ? You can't add material to the crankcase, I think someone mentoned you can add/remove material. I don't think this is true, but maybe I am wrong. I saw something interesting enough in Jessup that is a very fine gray area so perhaps I need to read the TECH manual closer and find that gray area as well.

Persoanlly I think the spirit of this rule is great. I agree with it 100% in it's intent. However, as we all know, that gray area will be exploited.

[14-H]

Intent of the Rule

***

Persoanlly I think the spirit of this rule is great. I agree with it 100% in it's intent. However, as we all know, that gray area will be exploited.

I have been following this discussion because I find it interesting. But when I see a statement like this, I have to speak up.

The INTENT of a rule is expressed in WHAT IT SAYS, not in what you or I think it means or what someone else desired when they drafted, wrote, voted on or enforced a rule. As I heard it said one time, very well, the drafters of the rule may have had some secret code whereby "black" really meant "white" and "up" really meant "down" and they all understood that. SO WHAT?

We go by what rules say, not by somebody's intent or by the "spirit" of the rule.

If the rule doesn't say what you intend it to say, it is a bad rule.

Eddie.

[thunderracing]

as a new 850 driver, it is homework that wins races. not carbs.
and at 96 mph how fast do we realy wanna go in a 12 ft boat?
just my thought

chuck H 280-P

[Dave M]

Well Put Ed

You said it. Well said.

The good thing is, the drivers of the class will decide if it is a good rule. It it passes, then majority rules, and we all follow it.

And Chuck, you only seeing 96MPH ? Time to go testing.. I wanna go as fast as my homework allows ! I gotta beat Ralph Cook this year somehow, so I need lots of homework.

[RichardKCMo]

At Least with your own Motor!!!

You said it. Well said.

The good thing is, the drivers of the class will decide if it is a good rule. It it passes, then majority rules, and we all follow it.

And Chuck, you only seeing 96MPH ? Time to go testing.. I wanna go as fast as my homework allows ! I gotta beat Ralph Cook this year somehow, so I need lots of homework.

Yea Dave maybe you won't have to borrow his motor to beat him...
Was that race in Ga. your first race this yr., how did you do?
RichardKCMo

[David_L6]

as a new 850 driver, it is homework that wins races. not carbs.
and at 96 mph how fast do we realy wanna go in a 12 ft boat?
just my thought

chuck H 280-P

Maybe you need a 13 ft boat?

[Dave M]

Wow

Cooks rig went so fast it blew the decks off !!! I can fix it right up for him.

Richard, I beat him in the runabout class, the 40CI Merc. Not my class. He offered to pay me big bucks to run it using his equipment. So how could I turn down his offer ? Not my fault he screwed up and gave me the good engine and not the back up... Might have been the first time a Yank won the D Runabout class in NBRA. The only complaint i had is he wouldn't give up the trohpy girls. He went and had to have two for himself to pose with and he didn't even offer me any ! So he deserved every ounce of getting whipped.

[RichardKCMo]

all true!!!

I know Dave, i was just pulling your chain.
Hope to see all you guys this yr at a race or 2 this yr.
About them trophy girls , that should have been part of the deal, your bad, i guess.
RichardKCMo

[STEVE FRENCH]

Maybe you need a 13 ft boat?

David, Does this mean one of the carbon rigs is avail!.......

19P

[David_L6]

David, Does this mean one of the carbon rigs is avail!.......

19P

NO WAY! NOPE! AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!

I like my Arltralite DMH / EMH / 750cc Mod / 44 boat. I have no doubt that I'll like my Arltralite FE / SE / 850cc Mod / whatever / - just as well. Hopefully I'll get to race it this year.......

I was just practicing my photoshop skills. That's really 2006, not 2008.

[Hunter]

more on carbs

...perhaps some of this carb issue arose as a result of the inspectors delimna at last years mod. nationals.Jim Robb's rig apparently wore some carbs that were not indiginous to the 49 cu in model years that are legal .I know the inspectors pondered the situation for quite a while. I thought they should have been judged illegal at the time ,which would have given me the win. I was not interested in sharing those thoughts or contesting the decisions.I did get to run with Eric in that same rig at Hillsdale and I suspect that we would both agree that those carbs were no more effective than what I run since I caught and passed him both heats in somewhat definitive fashion. Jetting carbs on the omc triple for density altitude,etc is more important for best performance than most realize.if venturi size is the same ,you just can't feed these beasts any better than we do now. Hunter III

[sam]

There is no "model year" restriction that I can find in the rules or tech sheets. There are no "legal" or "illegal" model years listed, all years and models are legal from the original 55 hp thru the 75 hp Stinger & Formula E models. The only restrictions on carbs I can find are the words "Only that same manufacturer's service carburators for that displacement motor and model maybe used on your 850cc motor ... "

If the problem had been Jim's carbs were from the wrong "model" of 49 ci motor, we should be removing the words "and model" from the rule. If the "problem" was Jim's carbs had no stamped number and some correct carbs have no number ... sounds like there was no problem, he had legal carbs ... its not like they were identified as coming from some other motor size, the only legal criteria written in the rules.

If there is a list of known legal carb numbers I'd rather see that as the rule change along with the addition that no number is legal, too.

As far as asking inspectors to make arbitrary visual identification of some parts, we do this in other rules such as "You must start with ... a recognizable service block ..."

Whatever your feelings about this are, please mark your ballot and mail it by next weekend.