321 Motors in non-sealed classes overheating

[DtwSailor]

Guys we are getting a little off topic right now. The thread was about the 321 heating, not the 302. Yes people have burned up a 302, but then we have kept them cool at the heights that are in the rule book. The 321 motor IS NOT OVERHEATING with the 2 blade proper and standard foot in the 300 Class. The 300 Class is fine with current motor setup. In fact it's more than fine, it's one of the fastest growing classes (and biased opinion) one heck of a ride!

The issue is when we take the 321 and swap out gear feet, raise it up and try to run it like a 302 in CSH or 20SSH. I have yet to burn a motor up because I was fortunate enough to know the signs of a cooked motor. I'm going to test Saturday at Grass Lake in 20SSH most likely running deep at 300SSH height instead of a smidgen below 20 height to gather a little more data on the speed/temp issue.

Collectively we need to come together as a group and not point fingers, blame engines, rules, and work to further grow our sport.

By the way, Mike Affholter ran my 321 in CSR in Jesup on Sunday with no issues. It's the only time that motor was first across the line..must be the driver????

At the end of the day, we need to prove for the new racers and budget minded racers that the same motor can be used for multiple classes, thus increasing the seat time, thus increasing the boat count, thus increasing the boats we have on the water.

Believe it or not, I see this as a good problem to have.

If you were at Constatine a few weeks ago, you will agree that I have never in 5 years of racing seen that large of a turn out! New races thru racer school and the 300 class and the assistance of other racers working together has GROWN the sport.

I would not be involved as heavily without Tim Sidor supporting me.

I'm off the soap box, and remember to thank a veteran as we start the Holiday weekend. Without their sacrifices, we would not be able to race today...something to ponder on....and more deeply than pistons and rings.

[stockc]

Regardless of whether its a 321 or one of its forefathers, the recipe to the overheating remedy is missing one simple ingredient, JUST ADD WATER..

Performance enhancing machining is allowed in these "stock" Yamato classes yet we are restricted to what I believe is a .297" pee hole for cooling??

If there needs to be another thread to continue this discussion then so be it, but I view us Yamato racing brothers and sisters chronically suffer from this problem. We will have more potential to influence a solution collectively than as individual Yamato model number owners.

Please shed some light on your comment below.

"Believe it or not, I see this as a good problem to have."

As for me , I'm not a believer.

Thank you.

[DtwSailor]

The fact that this is not an isolated incident, that we have technical guys around the nation who are smarter than I, and for the first time in a long time, interest and participation is on an upward trend.
We will resolve and fix.
MD

[Ram4x4]

Well, yes, this thread started about the 321, but apparently the other Yamatos are sort of in the mix as well, depending on certain circumstances, so I think it's fair if we include them all in the discussion. We shouldn't have to learn or know that it's good at 3/4" or deeper, but 1/2" is problematic, or it's good at certain depths with stock foot, but things change with shaped, etc. No need for ambiguity at all. Get a straight forward fix and be done with it.

If the intake hole can be expanded and it works, that's a simple, straight forward fix for everyone with a Yamato. End of story.

Of course, the 321 might need to be looked at further, that's possible, but if something that simple relieves issues for all others too, then allow it.

Certainly increasing the intake hole size doesn't provide any sort of performance gains and the heights are already set for the classes.

[Shane_B]

Agree that the overheating issue needs to be looked at - but also need to ensure UIM is involved so final solution includes OSY 400 category. I assume European OSY racers are/will experience overheating issues and will look into a remedy (although their boats are designed differently - believe their motors are well above 3/4") - need to ensure we are all on the same page or may end up with not being able to race in OSY due to potential permanent modifications not approved by UIM. I believe Bob Wartinger is looking at issue - he and John Adams can knock heads together to first find out reason for 321 overheating and then potential solutions (need to find out reason because just enlarging water collection port may not solve the problem if issue not at that point....). Yamato is focused solely on the para-mutual racing industry in Japan - if no problem there then in doesn't exist in Yamato's opinion - engine sales to US and Europe are a means for disposal of old engines from Yamato once done in Japan's racing circuit. By the way, in discussion with Bob this past weekend at Cullaby, he said the 321 was designed primarily not for performance improvement, but to lower noise emissions to permit night racing at Japanese stadiums (correct me if I understood wrong Bob). And if a reason and solution is determined and approved for the 321, include that modification to the 102 and 302 also. Just my two cents.

[stockc]

Hey Shane, congrats on getting booted out of Novice C!! I disagree, no involvement from UIM. APBA Yamato racers is the focus. Those few that can afford and may dabble in Yamato UIM racing can likely afford a second gear case or whatever changes are ultimately needed to swap back over to UIM standards. Many non UIM specs are already endorsed under APBA rules and do not meet UIM OSY rules. We need to keep this simple as possible. Just my 2 cents.

[Shane_B]

Thanks - bitter sweet getting kicked out of a great class! Whereas I understand your concerns - all valid - I think UIM may have some great resources in Europe to identlfy and remedy the overheating issue of the 321 and APBA et al can potentiallly leverage that for a (hopefully) quick resolution. Who knows, UIM may be able to react quicker that APBA - maybe not... just an idea. BUT - agree we this side of the pond go ahead and resolve overheating problem - and let UIM know how we fixed it... maybe they'll go ahead and adapt the modification (if required) also. As they run at unrestricted height, I'm sure they'll experience the overheating issue and want to resolve it too.