SideWinder Comparison?

[mercguy]

Let's get them on the water and legal for 2010. The people have spoken that they want the market to decide, so let's get to it. This is the easy part - why keep twiddling our thumbs?

Waiting until Winternationals to do side-by-side testing just delays the decision another year. The sooner we get to the inevitable war over parity, the better. That's the hard part, that's where the data is important.

I like the challenge Scott has thrown down to Region 10, especially on 20ss (I go further then he and say make the Sidewinder legal there). This region made the resticted 302 work, I have no doubt we can figure the 20 Sidewinder out first.

Make the Sidewinders legal in all classes in 2010.

why do you feel the motor should be legal in 20SSH? There are already 2 motors in the class, no need for a 3rd one at all. 20SSH is one of the biggest classes in STOCK, so why mess with it???? Approving a motor with no HARD testing data is not acceptible........................seems I remember the new motor in the D class was subjected to heavily required testing date, tear down and dyno testing............so why should this motor not be subjected to the same scrutiny???

[jeff55v]

You guys would be glad I'm Not running the show.
I'd say, the S.W. will be fully legal as they are in 2011, same weight, same height, etc. The old motors they are replacing will not be legal in those classes the following year.
Who cares about parity? Just legalize the motors and get rid of the old ones. DONE! That simple.
Like I said, you guys would be glad I'm not running the show.

[5-A]

Don't get me wrong but isn't there a pretty big disparity between 20ssh and 25ssh in terms of speed? I don't see how feild testing a motor in one class that was designed for and destined to end up in another helps at all. Why would anyone buy one to volunteer as a test dummy to get blown away every weekend in regions that field fast 25's and how would this encourage anyone watching to want to purchase one either (unless we think the SW is that much faster then the 20's and actually belongs in 25 - but here we are right back at needed test data). As a mid to back of the pack new to the clas 20ssh racer I say legalize it, if a bunch of 'em go flying by every weekend maybe I'll start putting all my pennies in a jar and try buying one.

While we're at it move the old 20 cube hot rods back to 20ssh/BSH (and by the way call it BSH) where they belong and let the poppers run there too. Just imagine this could end up a Yamato vs Yamato vs Sidewinder vs Hot Rod vs Mercury class similar to what you would see in other motorsports i.e. motocross, auto, etc

- I know the second paragraph is a pipe dream and flys in the face of the current agenda - please don't let it haze your opinions of the first

- Legalize it

[pav225]

You guys would be glad I'm Not running the show.
I'd say, the S.W. will be fully legal as they are in 2011, same weight, same height, etc. The old motors they are replacing will not be legal in those classes the following year.
Who cares about parity? Just legalize the motors and get rid of the old ones. DONE! That simple.
Like I said, you guys would be glad I'm not running the show.

Jeff,
You should really show up at some Region 7 races to get a better idea of how this would impact our sport.

- Mike

[pav225]

... Why would anyone buy one to volunteer as a test dummy to get blown away every weekend in regions that field fast 25's and how would this encourage anyone watching to want to purchase one either (unless we think the SW is that much faster then the 20's and actually belongs in 25 - but here we are right back at needed test data). As a mid to back of the pack new to the clas 20ssh racer I say legalize it, if a bunch of 'em go flying by every weekend maybe I'll start putting all my pennies in a jar and try buying one.

- Legalize it

Alex,
Would it be faster than the 20's??? Would it be slower???

This is where it would be nice to see some test data.

- Mike Pavlick

[Big Don]

You guys would be glad I'm Not running the show.
I'd say, the S.W. will be fully legal as they are in 2011, same weight, same height, etc. The old motors they are replacing will not be legal in those classes the following year.
Who cares about parity? Just legalize the motors and get rid of the old ones. DONE! That simple.
Like I said, you guys would be glad I'm not running the show.

And you would have three boats racing...but then again maybe that is what you like

[MGallagher]

Has this not all been done before at some time in Stock history. We are really not going to gain or loose a significant amount of members for equipment reasons. I guarantee we loose more members because of the petty squabbling that goes on because of bruised egos and political BS that happens year to year. Get on with it folks, the only thing there is to loose here is POSSIBLY a couple of racers or a company that has done nothing but sacrifice for the future of Stock Outboard. TAKE YOUR PICK.

I PM'd someone some numbers about the 20ci and am not willing to discuss them here because I wouldn't feel it to be prudent to do so before the National meeting and I also am talking about things that I overhear. However, I am positive that all these numbers that have been collected over the past year will be shared and discussed at the National Meeting where the members and committee members will make the RIGHT decision.

[drbyrne55]

Alex,
Would it be faster than the 20's??? Would it be slower???

This is where it would be nice to see some test data.

- Mike Pavlick

Slower or faster, so the data would be GPS readings? Or how it races and finishes relative to the 80/302's? Sounds as if the consensus answer is the SD20 is off the pace by 1-2 mph as we have all heard in both 25SSR and 20SSH and was consistently at least mid-pack. I suspect "data" will be presented at the meeting as it is prerequisite to the SORC legalization. Our OSY on board computer can spew out tons data ..... lateral g-force,rpm, EHT, ET.... accelerometer readings and such but is probably irrelevant here. If we have the chance to test one prior to the meeting, what data exactly would people like to see? Sean and I will try our best to collect it so it is no longer an issue. However, I assume the parity debate/issue will be the same with or without "data", so let's go straight to it ......???? I think we are full circle to Mike's previous post....

Waiting until Winternationals to do side-by-side testing just delays the decision another year. The sooner we get to the inevitable war over parity, the better.

[Team B&H]

Once upon a time there was a rule in the Stock Rules which said a manufacturer had to provide a sample of their proposed motor to the SO-VP. The motor remained the property of the manufacturer and had to be returned at some point but could be tested, raced and generally used to evaluate it in any non-destructive way the SO-VP or his designate chooses. That rule was there specifically to allow performance data to be generated and evaluated as well as find out if the motor was user friendly and durable as well. OMC submitted an A motor that numerous people tested the year before it was approved. We only raced it in one race against the A Mercs and it won (Plover WI). Because there were a lack of SO boats suitable for the 45SS, OMC leased an B&H boat and put a 45 motor on it and took it to several big races where anyone could drive it for just signing a waiver. Considerable testing by a number of racers was done with the Mecury 25XS and 44XS motors to determine the restrictor plate size for the 25XS so it wouldn't decimate the 25SS guys and the same was done for the 44XS exhaust pipe. Mercury also procurred a B&H boat for the 25 and a Furnal Flyer for the 44. All these motors were tested and even raced by a number of racers before they were approved. Somehow the rule requiring a manufacturer to proved a sample motor for evaluation disappeared from the rule book. Regardless, the Merc J motor was only tested at races before it was approved. It ran at Lock Haven in front of the eastern guys and then slower with a smaller restrictor plate at Grass Lake in front of the Midwest guys. It wasn't a race at Lock Haven but the smaller restrictor plate came from running it at a big race where everyone could see it. The smaller plate was then used at Grass Lake where it ran 2 seconds to the hot OMCs of Allen and Hagerl. Yes, I do know this is a J Committee deal not SORC but is an exact parallel situation.

My point is that much was learned from the open testing done with those motors and the SORC then knew what they were dealing with BEFORE they were approved.

I feel that the SORC would be foolish to accept these Sidewinder motors without any realistic, fairly widespread evaluation. Perhaps the change in SORC make up portends a move back to rational decisions based on facts and testing, not hope and change.

[Matt Dagostino]

Well said...............

Perhaps the change in SORC make up portends a move back to rational decisions based on facts and testing, not hope and change.

That's my goal................

Perhaps it would serve the followers of this thread to carefully read pages 56-58 of the 2009 Rulebook to educate themselves on the criteria for engines, equipment and how new classes are suppose to be introduced and approved. It is reading only a boat racer can love!

Later.

[drbyrne55]

That's my goal................

Perhaps it would serve the followers of this thread to carefully read pages 56-58 of the 2009 Rulebook to educate themselves on the criteria for engines, equipment and how new classes are suppose to be introduced and approved. It is reading only a boat racer can love!

Later.

page 22-23 ??

D. The procedure for approval of engines to be used in existing Stock Outboard classes is as follows:
1) At any time, a party in interest may submit to the SORC a petition for approval of a new engine for use in an existing class. The same shall be
considered submitted upon receipt by the Stock Activity Chairman of the petition and a twenty-five dollar ($25) filing fee (the fee to be deposited
in the Stock Outboard Promotional Fund).
2) The petition for approval shall contain or indicate the following:
a) The class(es) within which the new engine shall be utilized;
b) A description of the new engine including the name of the manufacturer, the displacement of the engine, and the horsepower rating;
c) The estimated speed range for both the hydroplane and runabout class, if applicable;
d) The estimated new cost for the engine;
e) Whether or not modifications of the engine of any kind will be required for racing; (Note: this shall include whether the engine is submitted as
a complete outboard motor, including powerhead and lower-unit, or whether the engine is submitted as an incomplete motor which shall have
an after-market racing foot or lower-unit, etc. installed);
f) The approximate availability date for the engine;
g) The approximate number of engines which are or shall be available for purchase;
h) The expected time period such engine shall be available from the manufacturer;
i) The estimated parts-availability;
j) Whether or not any currently approved engine(s) shall be eliminated from use or shall have any technical changes made; and
k) The name(s) and signature(s) of the individual(s) submitting the petition.
3) Contemporaneously with the filing of the petition, the proposed technical specifications for the engine and, if applicable, for the boats which shall
be utilized with the engine shall be submitted to the SORC.
4) Upon receipt of the petition for approval, the Chairman shall submit the same to the SORC or a committee thereof for consideration within ten
(10) days.
5) The SORC shall thereafter consider the petition. The SORC may approve the engine for a class other than the one(s) proposed in the petition.
6) The SORC shall consider, among other factors, the following:
a) The availability of the engine and parts;
b) The cost of the engine;
c) The expected speed range for the class(es);
d) Whether or not any existing engines shall be eliminated or obsoleted;
e) The impact upon the existing membership;
f) The potential success of the use of the proposed engine;
g) The extent to which the engine must be modified for racing purposes;
h) Whether or not the engine can reasonably be considered a Stock Outboard engine.
2009 APBA RULES • Junior Classes, Modified Outboard, PRO and Stock Outboard • 23
7) The SORC may hold hearings, make requests for information and do any other act reasonably necessary for the proper consideration of the
petition.
8) Once the SORC or a committee thereof has duly considered the petition for approval, the full SORC shall vote for approval or disapproval of the
petition.
9) The SORC may poll the members of the class(es) within which the motor is proposed to be incorporated or the full Stock Outboard membership
for input. However, the final decision for approval or disapproval of the petition shall be made by the SORC.
10) If the SORC approves the petition, the motor shall be eligible for competition 45 (forty-five) days after the date of approval unless such date falls
between May 1 and September 1. In the latter case, eligibility shall commence September 1. The petition shall be deemed approved if the SORC
does not disapprove the petition within forty-five (45) days from the filing of the petition or if the SORC does not notify the petitioners within
the same time period of the date that the decision shall be made.
11) Additionally, the technical specifications and any other rule change shall become effective at the date the proposed motor becomes eligible for
competition.
12) If the SORC disapproves the petition, the Chairman shall notify the petitioners of this decision within fourteen (14) days of the decision.
13) If the petition is disapproved, a petition for approval of the same engine for use in the same proposed class(es) contained in the original petition
shall not be filed within one (1) year from the date of the filing of the original petition.

[Cameraboy]

why do you feel the motor should be legal in 20SSH? There are already 2 motors in the class, no need for a 3rd one at all. 20SSH is one of the biggest classes in STOCK, so why mess with it???? Approving a motor with no HARD testing data is not acceptible........................seems I remember the new motor in the D class was subjected to heavily required testing date, tear down and dyno testing............so why should this motor not be subjected to the same scrutiny???

Daren my primary point is "Waiting until Winternationals to do side-by-side testing just delays the decision another year. The sooner we get to the inevitable war over parity, the better. That's the hard part, that's where the data is important."

Saying to make them all legal now is done with a level of sarcasm, because if you read the new motor "rules" that Matt mentions they contain enough loopholes (was it written by a lawyer or a committee?) to drive an F runabout through. It allows the SORC to raise or lower the bar for any nmotor at their discretion - including the poison pill of "9) The SORC may poll the members of the class(es) within which the motor is proposed to be incorporated or the full Stock Outboard membership".

One can make a valid argument that the approval "process" used for either the Tohatsu or the Sidewinders is flawed - that's the point. It hasn't been consistent. I remember somebody arguing back then that the demand for data was a delaying tactic by opponents.

The point is, treat each new motor consistently - the current rules allow that concept to be abused.

ps - And if three motors in "A" is acceptable, why not 20ss? Where is the consistency? How can anyone plan a racing program when there isn't any consistency?

pps - I found the response you got on your MORC thread fascinating- seems maybe staock and mod have similar new motor issues.

[Cameraboy]

Once upon a time there was a rule in the Stock Rules...

Sam, can you point me to that language or pass it along? I'd be interested in seeing if one of the commissioners would be willing to carrying a proposal to plug something like that back in.

As much as folks wanting data, I think there's a big fear of the unknown factor that putting a new motor out in at least each division for a year would go a long ways toward fixing. That's not going to happen by folks buying motors voluntarily, because the vast majority won't buy a motor they can't earn points with.

[Team 12R]

correct you are jeff

You guys would be glad I'm Not running the show.
I'd say, the S.W. will be fully legal as they are in 2011, same weight, same height, etc. The old motors they are replacing will not be legal in those classes the following year.
Who cares about parity? Just legalize the motors and get rid of the old ones. DONE! That simple.
Like I said, you guys would be glad I'm not running the show.

that mentality would kill stock outboard racing for sure. wow...

bill dingman
222R

[sam]

that mentality would kill stock outboard racing for sure

Times were certainly different, but it is the "mentality" that stock outboard racing was founded on in the 1950's. There were 3 generations of motors from Merc between 1950 and 1955 that each completely obsoleted the motors before them ... Stock grew like crazy