If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'd like to think that would change with elected commissioners that should be more receptive to us little guys but we'll see.
"Us little guys"........lol. Sam, why so humble tonight!
It's off to the Shane's Sheet Metal shop tomorrow to 'discuss' this topic and more at our fall club meeting! Abby Pond is coordinating this work/meeting/party. Boy how times have changed.
Jimmy will be giving lessons on how to build a carbon fiber mini-Inboard to run in J-Class. Word is it will run no faster than 135mph (with a restrictor plate).
Suppose there is a 100 rpm top difference or about 1 mph; what is a subtle difference maker that is not a hassle for inspectors? Weight? 5 to 10 lbs? Or?
Thanks for your comments Guido and Dan. I'm sure Joe Pater would run a 302 instead of his 102in CSH if the 302 were simply faster. I felt we were more competitive with our 302 stuff when the propshaft height was level with the bottom than we are now down in the basement at 3/4 inch. Sure we scuffed up some pistons to get to the point where we could run level, but I spent less on those half dozen pistons than on the props the "safety" rule forced on us. Maybe I'm just stubborn staying with the 302 instead of playing with some 102 stuff. But, hey, the commissioners by in large have been 102 guys just looking out for their own interests like most politicians do. I'd like to think that would change with elected commissioners that should be more receptive to us little guys but we'll see.
This will very likely change this year. The commissioners will be Mercury owners, a whole new self interest group.
I feel the CSH guys on the West Coast are invested in the 302 project beyond what some long time CSH drivers in the mid-west or east coast have done.
You cannot assume that the same boat with the same transom angle with the same prop will perform the same.
When you cut your transom down to place your 302 at the same legal height as the 102 you change your prop location considerably(with respect to the trailing edge of the bottom). The props are different, because the power curve is different.
I still firmly believe that the 302 is very close and we have a very few 102's left that will out perform the rest of the field no matter what motor you are running.
I think it will slow the guys down running the 80's. Why change it now? Its fine were it is.
I have also tested with the 80 raising it up by 1/8 slower to see speed diffrences and its not much. However I personnaly found it to be a cooling issue after the 2nd lap.
As far as the CSH, make it the same height as BSH.
I think it will slow the guys down running the 80's. Why change it now? Its fine were it is.
I have also tested with the 80 raising it up by 1/8 slower to see speed diffrences and its not much. However I personnaly found it to be a cooling issue after the 2nd lap.
As far as the CSH, make it the same height as BSH.
it will not kill the 80's........lowering them both achieves the same goal........makes it easier for inspectors also............it all comes down to those "shiny devils" bolted to the prop shaft............
Comment