Hydro Tuck-under

[14-H]

A simple solution...

In ASH only, change the height rule to measure 1-3/8" at the "highest point on the center line of the gearcase" instead of "at the center line of the prop shaft at its aft end." Easy fix; no way to get around it that I can see and no change in the inspection tools. Credit: mod7b for this idea. Ed.

[Dave M]

Now All You need

In ASH only, change the height rule to measure 1-3/8" at the "highest point on the center line of the gearcase" instead of "at the center line of the prop shaft at its aft end." Easy fix; no way to get around it that I can see and no change in the inspection tools. Credit: mod7b for this idea. Ed.

Now all you need is that in proposal form and passed at the National Meeting, then voted on by the A Stock drivers to pass it. The beauty of the system, the drivers get to vote !

[ryan_4z]

So now somebody who has to run tucked 3/8 for control purposes is at a huge disadvantage to someone who can run parallel.

[14-H]

So now somebody who has to run tucked 3/8 for control purposes is at a huge disadvantage to someone who can run parallel.

Trim the air traps; add 2 lbs to the nose. It's an easy fix for the "huge disadvantage". 14-H.

[14-H]

Now all you need is that in proposal form and passed at the National Meeting, then voted on by the A Stock drivers to pass it. The beauty of the system, the drivers get to vote !

Dave: In Mod do the drivers get to vote on safety items like is the case, apparently, in PRO? 'Cause in SO, that ain't the way it works. Ed.

[pav225]

More thoughts on transom heights

I feel that drivers should be responsible for their own (safe) set-ups, however ASH has gotten to the point, that in order to be competitive, you need to run a set-up (tucked under more than 3/4" and bullet in front of the bottom of the boat) that is not very safe. While some argue that these set-ups don't make the boats more unsafe, it's hard to argue with the facts. This year alone, four of the top ASH drivers crashed at least twice -and I think they were all single boat accidents. While I can't speak for Palmquist or DiFebo, I know Keylard and Hauenstein feel that the radical set-ups make the boat more difficult to drive. What's important is that these comments come from two of the fastest and most experienced ASHs in the country, they are not "sour grapes" trying to slow down the people in front in order to make themselves more competitive.

I've seen a lot of discussion on how to "limit" the set-up. Here are my thoughts: All boats will vary somewhat in the type of set-up they prefer to run,so you need to have a large enough "range" of tuck under in order to trim the boat accordingly. I think 1/2" tuck under provides plenty of adjustment to fine tune a boat for a particular driver. I also believe that the bullet should not be able to extend further forward than the back edge of the boat (the back edge of the boat will need to be clearly defined to make sure there aren't any loopholes to be found).

I like the idea of setting a minimum depth for the highest part of the gearcase (tip of bullet or center of prop shaft) -this does make inspection easier than trying to measure tuck under. If you wanted to measure tuck under, you could make a fairly simple gauge to do that as well.

My thoughts on the comments I saw on Hydroracer:
- If someone argues that their boat doesn't handle well unless it is tucked under more than 1/2", they can trim the airtraps to have it perform at 1/2" tuck under.
-Moving the motor forward does cause the boat to become less stable -especially with the wind. It's hard to argue with simple physics. By moving the motor forward, you push the weight closer to the "pivot point" of the boat, making it harder to keep the front end up.
-All racing organizations are responsible for providing a fair and safe environment for people to compete. As advancements are made, or speeds become unsafe, organizations makes adjustments to increase safety. Look at any racing (NASCAR (yes, people will get upset at the reference), F1, IRL, etc) and you can see that they make periodic adjustments in their rules in order to improve safety. Sure these teams can have tens or hundreds of full-time employees working for them, but the goal is still the same -safety.

Finally, I would like to be clear that my opinion does not benefit me personally. I'm not interested in building a lot of boats -so I am not proposing a rule modification in order to increase boat sales (actually, a rule modification would make it so that many of the current boats could still compete and people wouldn't need to buy new ones)...... After seeing some very experienced drivers crash this summer, it became clear that we have an issue.

-Mike Pavlick

[14-H]

Welcome, Mike

Mike: Welcome to the Hydroracer board. Thanks for your comments. Ed Hearn.

[Big Don]

Mike (225V), I could not agree with you more on your views regarding this topic… something needs to be done. We don't have anyone racing "A Hydro" in our family so I have nothing to gain either. What I don't want to see is our friends going on their heads trying to be competitive and risk hurting themselves or a competitor doing something we all know that makes the boat handle poorly.

Don

[Brian10s]

Differences

Dave,
Ed's right. In Mod, the drivers of a class would vote on something like this. In Stock, the Commission does it. So I guess the election of commissioners will be very interesting this year.

One question - is this really a this big a deal because it is a dangerous set up or because it is a dangerous set up in A? My point is we live in a monkey see, monkey do world. As I pointed out before, other classes are experimenting with this type of set up. So, if it is bad for one class, shouldn't it bad for all? Or is it just that we need to protect the "A Kids"? Most of those "A kids" have either more experience than most racers (Carl Holt & Ron France) or are some of the best young drivers on the water (insert many of the names from the finals @ Whitney Point).

So, which is it: all for one, one for all or is it just looking out for those "inexperienced" A drivers because the larger classes have better drivers and can handle the set up?

Brian 10s

[14-H]

Chicken or the egg???

Brian: It's the height restriction that makes the difference in the classes. Because in ASH the restriction is so low, there is a real advantage to a huge tuck under. The restrictions in the other hydro classes are not low enough to make this a large advantage: at least they are not so low as to create the need for a huge amount of tuck (even though a small amount might help) and this huge tuck is where the problem arises (ie: you're forcing a near-submersion in the nose of the boat and the only thing that prevents this is going full speed in optimum conditions to keep the cushion of air under the boat and thus the nose up. If you lose the cushion, you crash!) FAH needs the same rule, in my opinion solely because of the 1-3/8" restriction. Ed.

[Brian10s]

Ed,
While I agree with you on the height the principle is the same: cir***venting the height rule by useing tuck to increase speed.
After/ if you raise the height on the A's, what is to stop this from happening again? Why can't the progression of max tuck start again. Other classes at differnet height requirements are doing it now.

So, what are you trying to get rid of? The height requirement on A's to match everyone else or the excess tuck? By changing the height requirement, you have done nothing to prevent the tuck from happening again. It could just happen at a higher height.

Brian

[14-H]

Ed,
So, what are you trying to get rid of? ***
Brian

The huge tuck: it's unsafe!

[Dave M]

You Have to Ask ??

Dave: In Mod do the drivers get to vote on safety items like is the case, apparently, in PRO? 'Cause in SO, that ain't the way it works. Ed.

Ed you race Mod, you know the answer to your own question. As a kneel down outboarder I would like to think you know the rules of all three categories, Stock, Mod and Pro. Weren’t you involved in combining all the safety rules a few years ago for these three categories?

I still think it should be in the hands of the ones who race the class, but that is a whole other conversation all together.

[14-H]

Busted!

You're right, Dave. Brian's wrong: even in Mod the safety rules are voted on only by the Commission. Couldn't help myself with the Pro reference. Eddie.

[Brian10s]

Ed,
You are correct, if this was to go in under safety. Safety is always in the hands of the commission.

However, back to the original question, if max tuck is unsafe for one of the best designed and tracking gearfoots in Stock, why isn't unsafe for all the gearfeet. I don't think I will get any arguements that the OMC foot is a bullet compaired to the Battle Axe of the Yamato. So logically, unsafe for the best gearfoot, unsafe for all.

So if your purpose is to get rid of max tuck (ie max tuck = unsafe) then this is an across the board issue not an "A" issue. And watch out all you non stockers. If it is unsafe in Stock, then logically it is unsafe in all outboards.

In which case it is an issue for the Safety Committee and not the SORC.

Or, Ed, am I wrong in my thinking.