Questions for SORC

[ryan_4z]

The way I see it, we must take a stand right now against this illegal modification. As far as I am concerned anyone running a motor with chamfered ports should be disqualified. This needs to be made known publicly, here on hydroracer.net, before the nationals. Furthermore, as a participant in the race, can I appeal the decision made by the SORC, and have Scott re-disqualified? We cannot allow someone to win the nationals in the premier class in all of boat racing with an illegal motor. This has happened before, but we can eliminate that problem now, before the nationals. So, I challenge the SORC to do the right thing, stand behind the decision made by the inpector, and announce that any motors with chamfered ports will be disqualified at the nationals.

[Bob Dunlap]

Chamfering the ports should be illegal on a stock engine, I have heard Ed say you could break the sharp edge of the port, but not chamfer it. If you chamfer the port far enough you raise the port timing as in a mod engine. This is definately not stock and gives an unfair advantage. This kind of thing sure makes Stock Outboard Racing a "JOKE" and we don't need it.

[888race]

waiting for results

50/50 chance I see Ed is the inspector for the nats , so will he throw out chamfering or will the SORC OVER RULE HIM AGAIN ?????

[ryan_4z]

Don't jump the gun!

This is John not Ryan. Let's not blow this out of proportion or start bashing Stock Outboard. Although I was not in attendance during the commission meeting, and equally confused at its outcome, I believe in the end that this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of most of us. Every once in a while technical issues arise and are dealt with.This is no different. It is the commissions job to act quickly and fairly. It was their opinion that there is some grey area both in the specs and the conventional method of measuring ports. Without the proper tools some things can't be measured consistantly. It is the opinion of the inspector that these ports are illegal. That has not changed,nor have any technical rules. Therefore at the upcoming nationals that same inspector would have the same opinion about that same motor and should produce the same results. Disqualification. This time though, the inspector will have the proper tools to measure the ports. He will also have the opportunity to show the S.O. Chief Inspector, the class technical chairman, and the S.O.R.C. exactly where the problem is. Here is the bad news. There may be many of us out there that could have the same problem, as this "taking the sharp edge off of the ports" may be standard operating procedure of some engine builders. The primary purpose to improve durability so as not to wear out the rings as quickly. Unfortunately, at least in this case, it was done to the point of being illegal. Speak to your engine builder about your engine just to be sure.The question that can't be answered at this time is " What happens next?" As a commissioner, I ask that you all be patient until we sort all this out. I assure you that the integrity of the sport is our highest priority. John Runne 2-Z

[mercguy]

This is John not Ryan. Let's not blow this out of proportion or start bashing Stock Outboard. Although I was not in attendance during the commission meeting, and equally confused at its outcome, I believe in the end that this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of most of us. Every once in a while technical issues arise and are dealt with.This is no different. It is the commissions job to act quickly and fairly. It was their opinion that there is some grey area both in the specs and the conventional method of measuring ports. Without the proper tools some things can't be measured consistantly. It is the opinion of the inspector that these ports are illegal. That has not changed,nor have any technical rules. Therefore at the upcoming nationals that same inspector would have the same opinion about that same motor and should produce the same results. Disqualification. This time though, the inspector will have the proper tools to measure the ports. He will also have the opportunity to show the S.O. Chief Inspector, the class technical chairman, and the S.O.R.C. exactly where the problem is. Here is the bad news. There may be many of us out there that could have the same problem, as this "taking the sharp edge off of the ports" may be standard operating procedure of some engine builders. The primary purpose to improve durability so as not to wear out the rings as quickly. Unfortunately, at least in this case, it was done to the point of being illegal. Speak to your engine builder about your engine just to be sure.The question that can't be answered at this time is " What happens next?" As a commissioner, I ask that you all be patient until we sort all this out. I assure you that the integrity of the sport is our highest priority. John Runne 2-Z

well said John. I would be willing to bet $100 that that same motor (unless it gets resleeved) WILL NOT be ran at the Nat's!

[tj15m]

ports

At the time of the appeal there were no Yamato blueprints for the Yamato 102 engine available to the commission. The commission voted 5-5-one obstention for the appeal. Appeal failed. Another motion submitted and the vote was 5-5-one obstention. Mr Hearn voted in the driver's favor. Scott was reinstated. I now have a Yamato blueprint for the sleeve and the UIM holomolugation sheets for the Yamato 102 motor. Remember the motor must be raced as furnished by the manufacturer, except as noted in the inspection manual.
Tom Johnston
Yamato tec committee
Region 6 Commissioner

[Abbott Racing]

A question for TJ, is there a possibility that the motors sent from Japan already have the chamfering done? Or is this something that takes place on this side of the ocean.....

[HYDRO21Z]

At the time of the appeal there were no Yamato blueprints for the Yamato 102 engine available to the commission. The commission voted 5-5-one obstention for the appeal. Appeal failed. Another motion submitted and the vote was 5-5-one obstention. Mr Hearn voted in the driver's favor. Scott was reinstated. I now have a Yamato blueprint for the sleeve and the UIM holomolugation sheets for the Yamato 102 motor. Remember the motor must be raced as furnished by the manufacturer, except as noted in the inspection manual.
Tom Johnston
Yamato tec committee
Region 6 Commissioner

Thank you Tom!!!
I knew common sense and fairplay would prevail.
Let the racing begin!!!

[ryan_4z]

I would like to re-state something my father mentioned. Call your engine builders. The way I understand it, it is the opinion of the SORC that there may be many motors out there with chamfered ports. Now that tooling is available to accurately measure this, it will be checked at the nationals. This goes for all yamato class drivers. Don't make the mistake of assuming that your motor is legal. Double check before you go to Dayton. I would hate to see someone get thrown out at the Nationals for something that has gotten this much attention.

[mike ross]

TJ What did the blueprint look like? Did an original sleeve show any kind of port Chamfering or did it look like it just had the edge broken. I am currently checking my motor and would like to know what the original blue print would have indicated. My motor has been thru 4 national inspections and passed everytime. I would be very upset if it all of a sudden this motor was deemed illegal. This issue should have been addressed some time ago. I know motor builders were trained to releive the sharp edge for piston ring relief. From some of the talk it was estimated that the chamfer on the motor in question was around 15 to 20 thousands. If you were to look at this in the block this would not look like someone drasticly tried to chamfer the port to gain a performance advantage. Now if you were to chamfer a port and there was a 1/8 to 1/4 inch chammfer this would surely be deemed illegal. I know this issue has come up in a few different divisions of outboard racing and we need to have a hard fast rule on this so everyone has clear explanation so not to have so much tension when we show up in inspection. Mike

[14-H]

50/50 chance I see Ed is the inspector for the nats , so will he throw out chamfering or will the SORC OVER RULE HIM AGAIN ?????

I thought you weren't coming because of the numbers thing???

[888race]

I changed my mind

It's beause I couldn't come up with a song about America

[ryan_4z]

This is John again, for some reason this stupid computer won't let us log out Ryans user name. Anyway. Mike, I hope I got this right. The way I understand this particular case, When the port was measured at 90 degrees with a caliper as it is always measured, the port was within .001" from the absolute minimum spec. So far so good. From the view from the back of the block you cannot see a chamfer on the aftmost side of the port, BUT, if you turn the block around and look from the front, the chamfer can then be seen. Knowing that the port was only .001" from the minimum spec, there was no room for any chamfer. Therefore when you remeasure where the port really breaks from the cylinder wall which is where the chamfer begins, the port opening/port timing is now illegal. If the port location where .020" from the minimum, a .015"-.020" chamfer would not have made the port timing illegal. I am not qualified to tell you if the block would then be legal because of the chamfer. So actually there is two issues in this case. Hopefully, somebody with all the answers will chime in. If not, you might want to make some phone calls. Personally, I sent my powerhead to the man as soon as I heard what was going on. On another note, your new boat is hot, I hope you're man enough (you might want to workout or something before the nat's, a couple pounds of musle won't hurt and maybe some cardio-vascular stuff would be good). Just a thought! see ya. John2-Z

[mike ross]

I'm getting pumped up and I am heading to the work out room at the hotel I'm at. You got me stoked and you know I like it Hot!!!!. I'm thinking of what hot color I'm going to go with on this new Runne Rig. I to have pulled my block to see if the ports look ok. It seems funny to me that if motors inspected in the past by several motor builders have not had any issues then maybe this paticular motor could be questionable. When we talked to Rodger Carr he indicated that his two motors were slightly different in the way the port edge looked. One looked like it had a slight bit mor angle and the other looked more to the line of breaking an edge with a little less angle. Now every port we are going to look at is probably going to vary some. I think we need to get the C tech commitee working on what we are going to allow and what would be deemed to much angle at the port. If the port at 90 degrees is at the lowest limit then this angle would be more critical. It seems that all motors could have some relief at the port but if you are at the limit 90 degrees then you are going to have to be careful on how the tech commitee rules on how we will measure. If they use the 90 degree to measure then there will need to be a relief allowance set. My personal opinion is that 10 to 15 thousands is a very small amount. Now if you see 1/8 - 1/4 inch then that is a little extreme and should be considered illegal. The other thing was this port angle on the motor in question did not appear to have the angel all the way across and was less as you went to the sides of the port from what was discussed in the meeting. So it looked to only be a greater angle in the center and tappered out as you looked to the edge of the ports. Mike

[ryan_4z]

From what I understand, the relevent measurement is the port opening. That is where the speed advantage comes in. It the port opens, at any point, earlier than the spec. than it is illegal. The chamfer is irrelevent if the port doesn't open early, because that just means that the port could be widened more, and still meet spec. So long as there is tooling available to measure the precise point at which the port opens, then this is a cut and dry issue. The reason some illegal motors may have passed national inspections before, is simply that they were not torn down to this extent. In other words, just because someone may have gotten through inspection, doesn't mean that the motor was ever truely legal.