SO Class Reduction Proposal

[Kev43V]

Although there are details to be worked out there are valid and exciting concepts floating around on this forum. As a racer I ask only that swift work be made of our direction. People like me just want a consistent plan so we can map out and begin work on our racing programs. There is nothing worst than the philosophical shifts this sport/category undergoes each and every time there is a new chairperson and/or commission.

Lock it down and let’s move forward!

I agree! It seems to me that to date. we have been on this tiny patch of ground since long before I came on the scene. We make few steps in one direction. than it is an about face right back to where we started.then repeat.
Some times in a new direction, sometimes not. At some point the ground turned to muck. We now have a decent sized hole tromped in the mud. it is past time to climb out of the hole and charge. the days for "we are not retreating, we are charging in the other direction!" are long over. the hole is deep and the water is to our necks. if we tromp much deeper we better grow gills.
And Dean I understand as well as anyone, that that is exactly what you are trying to do.

AS a racer: give me the dang plan and I will work with it.

As a recruiter:
I have always tried to steer people to where they fit best. if thats Mod or Pro or OPC or Inboard or yes even Stock, and of course J, thats were the majority of the interest has actually been,(J) followed by Stock. So thats were I try to send them. In my efforts there have been several interested in every Cat.
As I pointed out in such a poor way yesterday. It has become nearly impossible to give someone valid information on class structure for Stock.
because we will not stick with what is decided. THAT MUST CHANGE!
Dean, There is is a ton of merit to your basic proposal. (this is coming from someone that fundamentally believes we should EVENTUALLY have one motor per class.! (via attrition)

[csh2z]

Troy, Don, etc.,
We tried that, I've been told it was rejected by the membership. We had a plan for three years. But rather than negotiate the details, it was just dropped. There was a well defined goal and a sequence of events with a flexible timeline. It informed the membership the necessary information to plan their racing future with confidence. There was a three year phase out of older motors that would begin whenever the SORC determined the time was right. As slowly as the SORC moves on major changes, I didn't expect anything to happen real soon.
The plan was not perfect and would effect different parts of the country in different ways, but there was a plan. We had a Steering Committee of seven well experienced members willing to put the time and effort into this project knowing that some people may quit, some will just move to MOD, we may lose some friends along the way, but in the long run it was what had to be done.
That proposal was made at the January 2007 National meeting and accepted by the SORC. The end goal was to reduce the number of classes and eventually end up with only one motor per class ( Perfect Parity). Every class would have a currently manufactured motor.
The focus of our committee was to give both veteran and new members the information they would need to evaluate thieir racing needs both short and long term. No surprises, no parity committees (eventually), no allowable modifications on motors (leaving Stock, stock. As much as possible) and a stable set of rules for the forseeable future.
We would be creating a marketable product that we can streamline, promote and grow.




but,,, Who would want that?

[swheeler]

Rick Miller you win the gold start, your suggestion running with 40CC Hydro is awesome. In my opinion it is the missing piece to the equation! I will contact the MOD chairman and get working on that. Please provide me with any testing speed info. you can. We need a data set to have a chance. If you can run a little further with it Rick contact Steve Wheeler and see if he has data and test the water. My Dad may also have some GPS speeds from the season he ran it.

When I got back into racing in 2005 the 25xs was a proto type motor in what was then 25 mod hydro, now known as 400 mod hydro. The data showed that the current engines where better on short courses but the 25xs with it's larger displacement and loop charged induction would be the prefered engines on bigger courses. This sets up a situation similiar to the old C stock classes where a driver needed to have 2 engines, a Merc 30-h and a Yamato to be competive on all courses. This is not a good situation.

Also, I am amazed that the current engines have the level of parity that the 400 mod class now enjoys. The 20 cube Hot Rod and Sidewinder are both currently proto type engines in this class. I don't see how you could ever reach a level a parity if a class have 5 legal engines in it.

For these reasons I would not support bringing the 25xs into the 400 mod class.

I am currently running a boat built for 25 stock and am using the 25xs driveshaft housing and gear foot. I would encourage anyone currently running the 25xs to get a currently legal powerhead and come join us. I'll bet your props will even work.

[14-H]

Dean, ****

PS. The brand that APBA has could be leveraged in the Digital world to finance the club shortfalls if they didn't continue to piss it away. But, that is for another thread at another time...

THIS, is what we should be talking about. Not what to do with 25SSH. The APBA has much bigger concerns that affect Stock Outboard racing. But they are not limited to only Stock Outboard.

[propnuts]

You get what you deserve..

They say in a democracy you get the government you deserve. Last fall there was a clear choice between leadership that wanted to stick to the steering committee recomendations and keep looking to the future (Ried), and one that was more concerned with the here and now (Hearn). The election results showed where people wanted us to go, so don't start talking about the future NOW, this is the bed that you made, live with it.

Troy, Don, etc.,
We tried that, I've been told it was rejected by the membership. We had a plan for three years. But rather than negotiate the details, it was just dropped. There was a well defined goal and a sequence of events with a flexible timeline. It informed the membership the necessary information to plan their racing future with confidence. There was a three year phase out of older motors that would begin whenever the SORC determined the time was right. As slowly as the SORC moves on major changes, I didn't expect anything to happen real soon.
The plan was not perfect and would effect different parts of the country in different ways, but there was a plan. We had a Steering Committee of seven well experienced members willing to put the time and effort into this project knowing that some people may quit, some will just move to MOD, we may lose some friends along the way, but in the long run it was what had to be done.
That proposal was made at the January 2007 National meeting and accepted by the SORC. The end goal was to reduce the number of classes and eventually end up with only one motor per class ( Perfect Parity). Every class would have a currently manufactured motor.
The focus of our committee was to give both veteran and new members the information they would need to evaluate thieir racing needs both short and long term. No surprises, no parity committees (eventually), no allowable modifications on motors (leaving Stock, stock. As much as possible) and a stable set of rules for the forseeable future.
We would be creating a marketable product that we can streamline, promote and grow.




but,,, Who would want that?

[Kev43V]

THIS, is what we should be talking about. Not what to do with 25SSH. The APBA has much bigger concerns that affect Stock Outboard racing. But they are not limited to only Stock Outboard.

On this subject promoting stock (and other Cats) was handed off to someone:

what has been done?
and what are we going to do next year?

[Big Don]

[QUOTE=csh2z;166391]Troy, Don, etc.,
and eventually end up with only one motor per class ( Perfect Parity). Every class would have a currently manufactured motor.

John I think the proposal had a lot of merit and I appreciate all the time everyone put in but the one line above is what had most worried and why the guard was changed again…in this day and age no one wants to leave anyone behind and not have a place to race. Right or wrong I believe that is the one major obstacle that had people worried. Therefore we saw what happened.

I also think that is why people are sitting back knowing darn well what we vote in this year could easily be reversed every year depending on who’s on the SORC.

[B Walker]

John I think the proposal had a lot of merit and I appreciate all the time everyone put in but the one line above is what had most worried and why the guard was changed again…in this day and age no one wants to leave anyone behind and not have a place to race. Right or wrong I believe that is the one major obstacle that had people worried. Therefore we saw what happened.

The Steering Comittee had no power to make any changes. It was an advisory committee. Its outlook was long term. It was formed to help keep a continuity of policy across multiple SORC's.

The recommendations of the Steering Committee had no timeframe attatched. The "Perfect Parity" concept was stated as a goal and everyone involved with the creation of the policy agreed it was in the 10 year plus timeframe but it was consistently mischaracterized during the last election cycle as an iminent policy of Chairman Reed and his supporters.

Fear of change was used like a blunt instrument to beat the average boatracer into voting for people that coveted political power.

I find it interesting that one of the first acts of the new leadership was to disband the Steering Committee. For better or worse, this is where we are.


BW

[14-H]

***I find it interesting that one of the first acts of the new leadership was to disband the Steering Committee. For better or worse, this is where we are.


BW

Brad: I originally created the Steering Committee. It ended every year as do all committees under the APBA as they are only 1-year terms. Therefore, it was not "disbanded", as you've indicated. I simply did not reappoint the committee in 2010.

Why do you think that is "interesting"?

[Big Don]

The recommendations of the Steering Committee had no timeframe attatched.


BW

Really? There were no time lines? Maybe I saw a copy of a doctored up version with their recommendation on it. Maybe it I can’t read…but this seems to say different.
DO NOT take that I don’t support change…but I’m also a facts person so let’s be accurate.


Posted on HR 2/3/10….It was decided that the Sidewinder would be the motor of choice for the A class. Based on our goal to eventually get to one motor in the class we believe it is in our best interest to eliminate the use of the Merc as soon as possible. As I stated earlier, there are times when moving fast is very important and this is one of those times. Currently very few people try to compete in A Stock with their Merc. In most cases it is only done to get another ride or to help fill the field. We first proposed the phasing out of the Merc at the National meeting in 2007 Our primary reason for trying to do this so quickly was to prevent people, particularly new racers, from buying a motor that was not competitive and was planned for elimination in the near future. We don’t want new racers to get screwed because they don’t know what’s going on or they don’t know what is coming in the future. The most important part of our proposals in 2007 was to introduce new motors and create a schedule to phase out older motors with as much advanced notice as possible so that racers could make informed decisions based on a known schedule. The phase out process would be a three year notice that a motor will no longer be eligible for use in a class……………………….
Then again in the C classs….begin a three year phase out of the 102 in the C classes. No doubt he would then sell motors and solve any parity issues in C between the 102 and 302.

[STEVE FRENCH]

...........

Steve, it is a scary day when I can understand what you are typing' (LOL) !
My proposal was to run the 25ssh (in the stock formation and rules) in 400cc Hydro. I do not feel we would achieve parity by going to four blades. My hope was to keep it simple.

Jeff my type'n style is an adaption/abomination (depends on da read'rs sense of humor/attitude/sobriety) .......adapted from the "Mad Russian"/Alex DSH-Tahotsu....Kind'a confuse'n.....but it does make ya re-read it till ya git my point....huh?
(Plus once da Irish coffee wears off, I go back and edit till it makes sense ta me....sober.)

Shelve da 4-Blade offer.....just try'n ta git ya syke'd!....A ?...Still could have'm avail ta test.

Mr.Wheeler.....sort'a understand your point >?<.......but 25MOD needs help now!.....With the low (Under 10 ?) number of drivers this year, PLEASE consider the 25xs as a proto-type motor ?......again.
70 MPH with a 20 Sidewinder????? (has anyone even tried a chamber on dis deflector piston engine?...14H/40M?).....How many 20 Hot-Rods came out ta run with ya?...Any in process that ya know of?..... I tried to beg/ barrow/buy one of the "Top-Guns" in NBRA from Rick Morris to run in BMH/APBA but it never happen'd....
I'm side-lined dis year from my tumble at Lock-Haven 2009 While support'n BMH but have equipment ready for next year for me and/or two other drivers.....just hope'n dees engines.....survive!......Plus a few tricks up my sleeve if Fitsracing ever sends me a PHONE NUMBER!!!

(To be honest Jeff....I think 25SSH will survive.....STOCK has bigger issues ta figure out.).....Their bus is way out'a tune and should be easy to step aside from git'n run over!.........BEEP....errr ....eeeeeeep....(14J let go'a da dang horn!)

[B Walker]

Really? There were no time lines? Maybe I saw a copy of a doctored up version with their recommendation on it. Maybe it I can’t read…but this seems to say different.
DO NOT take that I don’t support change…but I’m also a facts person so let’s be accurate.


Posted on HR 2/3/10….It was decided that the Sidewinder would be the motor of choice for the A class. Based on our goal to eventually get to one motor in the class we believe it is in our best interest to eliminate the use of the Merc as soon as possible. As I stated earlier, there are times when moving fast is very important and this is one of those times. Currently very few people try to compete in A Stock with their Merc. In most cases it is only done to get another ride or to help fill the field. We first proposed the phasing out of the Merc at the National meeting in 2007 Our primary reason for trying to do this so quickly was to prevent people, particularly new racers, from buying a motor that was not competitive and was planned for elimination in the near future. We don’t want new racers to get screwed because they don’t know what’s going on or they don’t know what is coming in the future. The most important part of our proposals in 2007 was to introduce new motors and create a schedule to phase out older motors with as much advanced notice as possible so that racers could make informed decisions based on a known schedule. The phase out process would be a three year notice that a motor will no longer be eligible for use in a class……………………….
Then again in the C classs….begin a three year phase out of the 102 in the C classes. No doubt he would then sell motors and solve any parity issues in C between the 102 and 302.

I stand corrected. It might have been better for me to say any timeframes in documents by the Steering Committee were suggestions to the SORC rather than a policy which the SORC must follow.

The point I was trying to make was that the Steering Committee was an advisory board and did not have any power to implement anything but was treated as a secret society of power brokers trying to take over Stock Outboard.

But again, none of this matters as there is no Steering Committee anymore.

BW

[B Walker]

Brad: I originally created the Steering Committee. It ended every year as do all committees under the APBA as they are only 1-year terms. Therefore, it was not "disbanded", as you've indicated. I simply did not reappoint the committee in 2010.

Why do you think that is "interesting"?

Ed, I find my description of disbanding and your description of failure to renew the committee a distinction without a difference.

End result is the same and I am an end results kinda guy.

A more interesting question to me is why wasnt it renewed?

It is no secret that I believe the work done by the Steering Committee was one of the few bright spots in a 30+ year history of mismanagement and failures of leadership.

Brad Walker

More things I find interesting:

The sudden interest in doing something proactive now that the core regions are having difficulty putting on races.
The sounds of crickets chirping everytime I mention a reorganization of regions to better reflect the membership base.

[mercguy]

ONE MOTOR classes.........plus

Troy, Don, etc.,
We tried that, I've been told it was rejected by the membership. We had a plan for three years. But rather than negotiate the details, it was just dropped. There was a well defined goal and a sequence of events with a flexible timeline. It informed the membership the necessary information to plan their racing future with confidence. There was a three year phase out of older motors that would begin whenever the SORC determined the time was right. As slowly as the SORC moves on major changes, I didn't expect anything to happen real soon.
The plan was not perfect and would effect different parts of the country in different ways, but there was a plan. We had a Steering Committee of seven well experienced members willing to put the time and effort into this project knowing that some people may quit, some will just move to MOD, we may lose some friends along the way, but in the long run it was what had to be done.
That proposal was made at the January 2007 National meeting and accepted by the SORC. The end goal was to reduce the number of classes and eventually end up with only one motor per class ( Perfect Parity). Every class would have a currently manufactured motor.
The focus of our committee was to give both veteran and new members the information they would need to evaluate thieir racing needs both short and long term. No surprises, no parity committees (eventually), no allowable modifications on motors (leaving Stock, stock. As much as possible) and a stable set of rules for the forseeable future.
We would be creating a marketable product that we can streamline, promote and grow.




but,,, Who would want that?

John, the issue with the "one motor per class idea" is that there is no guarantee how long the manufacturer will continue to build the motor that was chosen for the class. With the way outboard manufacturers are ran today, they could drop the motor instantly from their production line. I can pretty much bet the Merc 15 will not stay in production past the 2017 year (or right around there). Same could probably be said for the Tohatsu M50D. With the decreased selling of "dirty" 2 strokes, the manufacturers will just stop wasting their time and energy and use the production facilities for something that is "green" and that they can market and sell. Remember they are in business to make money (of which they really aren't busting at the seams with right now). So, having multiple engines in the class will lessen the outcome of the future. Plus, having "brand fights" makes racing more exciting.................just like NASCAR.

PS: if a group of racers are trying to keep their class alive and not have it eliminated, you MUST show up and race at the Nationals............this will prove how dedicated you are!

[14J]

On this subject promoting stock (and other Cats) was handed off to someone:

what has been done?
and what are we going to do next year?

Good question, seems it wasn't worthy of an answer