Stock 321 to run 20 without a restrictor at deeper depth (stolen from BOD thread)

[Ram4x4]

A couple questions maybe someone can answer:

1. According to the Yamato Racing Engines Europe website, the Y80 and Y102 are the same HP (30HP) why then does the 102 have to be restricted for running in the 20SSH class?

2. I've seen several posts that we need to grow the 20SSH class...how do you grow a class based on a motor that's been out of production for 35 years (unless someone sells theirs)?

[pav225]

You can use a 80, 102, 302, 321, or SW in 20ssH. Y80s are still great motors no matter how old they are. A Y80 got 2nd at this year's Nationals.

[Matt Dagostino]

It is kinda important to keep the outdated motors in the classes nowadays to provide a CHEAP entry into Stock Outboard racing. I agree with Pav as usual. Most Stock Outboarders, especially new folks that want to get in cheap can't afford $5000 A Class and B Class motors. The older Yamato's, OMC's etc provide easy access.

[LarryR]

Matt's point is correct and very relevant, IMO.
To answer the original post, Q1, isn't the Y80 20-cu.in. and Y102 24+?
Please correct me if I am mistaken. I'd like to know for sure.

[Ram4x4]

I know I can use my 102 in 20SSH, but I have put a restrictor in it to do so. When I do that, it's not even close to competitive, hence my question. If the Y80 and the Y102 are the same HP, why then does the 102 have to be restricted to run in the class? I understand about restricting a 302 or 321 as they are higher HP engines.

[deeougee]

That's a misprint. Y80 is 20 ci and the 102 is 25 ci. They are not the same hp. I'm with you guys, I'm going to run a Y80 til they say we can't anymore. Absolutely the most cost effective way to get into hydroplane racing. I keep wondering though why there are so many Y80's and 102's for sale that aren't moving to quickly? I'm wondering if the points ignition system is turning people off because they are not mechanically inclined? I've been considering running an engine clinic for these motors to help educate existing and new racers. Could also simply be a parts availability issue. Again current production versus non prodution.

[Ram4x4]

Aha, then concerning the Y80 and Y102, that makes more sense.

I have nothing against the Y80, or any other engine, if they are allowed in a class, then run it if you got it. My concern is geared toward new racers. Right now, the only classes that offer available "new" motors are those running the Sidewinder (expensive), or 300SSH (321 availability will settle out). Pretty much everything else requires an older engine no longer available if you want to be competitive. I just hit on 20SSH as an example because I have a 102 and tried a restrictor. How many people are winning in 20SSH with a 102 and restrictor combo, realistically?

I've seen some restricted 302's doing OK in 20, but the majority of 20SSH drivers that are in the top are running Y80's.

[GrandpaRacer]

Here's a simple way one guy cools his Yamato. Only requires two holes drilled in the cavitation plate. The rules already allow holes drilled there for the kick out. The owner says it works great in CMod. The pick up is about 3/8 ID. The hose goes to the static test cooling port in the tower.

[ZUL8TR]

Great idea even on the correct side of the center to take advantage of the up blade water blast and not obstructed by the exhaust down snoot.

[Matt Dagostino]

GRAMPA RACER............that is a awesome fix. The pick up tube is just out of the water as not to 'drag'?? No more burning up motors. What a great idea!! Perhaps the SORC is listening.?

[GrandpaRacer]

I wish I could take credit but I saw this on David Salmon CMod hydro!

[Ram4x4]

Well, as has been posted recently, adding a second pee hole ala the Y80 cooled the 321 at 3/4" depth, but it did not work at 1/2"...sooo...what next? I'm still on the side of the pickup tube. If that means some people can whip out their special wheel, then so be it. It just means some rigs will have a different/better prop to run with...and chasing props isn't exactly a new thing, right?

[Shane_B]

Writing up a draft research paper is easy enough - but need much more knowledgeable folks flush out hypotheses and variables as desired AND THEN get consensus from the community (HARD PART). Testing to provide data will have to fall on someone with resources (motors/towers/boats/time/etc.), potentially get APBA to provide motors/towers for testing? Just as a heads up, with variables listed one is looking at 48 runs for each motor modification (plus another 48 for baseline motor set up). Of course it doesn't need to be done this way, but will show impact by each SWAG variable listed below (hull/motor height/prop type/tuck/water conditions).... Fun.

[GrandpaRacer]

Ram4x4, I am aware of this test but where did it get posted?.... I missed seeing it.
John Adams
Never mind, I just found it on the APBA thread. The results were very surprising and speaks to the difficulty of one size fits all.

[Ram4x4]

Which is why I'm leaning toward the pick up tube. As I've been told, everything affects cooling, the prop, the kick out/tuck angle, the height, the hull, etc. That second pee hole might be OK at 1/2" on another boat, but that begs the question; do we realistically have the time and resources to test it on that many boats and configurations? What happens when a solution is decided on that we find out down the road doesn't work on say, 30% of the boats out there? Do we tell those guys "oh well, sucks to be you, buy/build a new hull"? We already have enough with some people wanting to get ancient engines out of classes and those wanting to keep them because it would be too costly to change.

The pick up tube is simple, non destructive, and can be placed/moved to suit your set up and hull. Someone said dragging a tube costs 1MPH in speed, but someone else said with that kind of cooling, they have a faster prop available....so, best case, you don't get as much of a speed increase, worst case you break even. The particular set up you showed would be fine. If anything, make the rule simply state something like "Cooling tubes must be plumbed into the auxiliary port of the engine. Tubes may not be plumbed into any other portion of the tower or head. Placement and size of the pick up portion of the tube is up to the owner."

I actually agree with Shane_B to an extent, proper tests should be conducted but we don't have the resources to do that in a timely manner or to do it as thoroughly as it should be done. This isn't NASCAR or F1 with the money and equipment resources they have, this is hobby racing. We need the solution to be as simple and effective as possible and in a timely manner so the 321 can get introduced into the mix as quickly as possible to ensure new drivers have equipment available to grow the sport! I think it's fair to say growth is probably our #1 overall issue and has certainly been touted as a major problem.

[guedo499]

Shane - you're exactly correct with how data should be presented. However, the viewpoint I have is not a 80 vs 102 vs 321 vs 302 pumping issue, its a Stock motor running at stock-regulated heights but still has trouble pumping issue.

One of the sales-guys that calls on my business used to run a tunnel-boat (before capsules) and wants to get back into racing. He doesn't have the budget for a Tohatsu, but would like to buy and run a Yamato based class because of his size. I was telling him that he can get a 321 easily enough, but it really can't be competitively raced in 2 of the classes it's legal for because of the pumping issue. As expected, he gave ma a that WTF look. I didn't even mention that even if he got a 302, he could possibly have similar issues...

Talking with Steve Greaves, who sells Keller hardware http://www.portagebaysystems.com/marine/products32.htm , (this is how I envisioned cooling my yamatos if rules allowed it) he mentioned that when dragging the tube used for yester-year's speedometer, it was generally accepted that you lost 1mph or more.

[Shane_B]

John - AGREE!

[ronronx]

John, in order of your statements above:

1. Shane is correct, more data is absolutely needed before any decisions can be made.

2. If presented to me in the same manner I would have also said WTF. However there are dozens of ways that this could have been presented that would not have necessarily hidden the issues but also have shown the benefits of each potential Yamato class. 321 aside. (Obviously it needs more testing)

3. I believe Steve Greaves comment is correct, however I also believe his statement was based on mounting the hardware at the transom like it was done in the past, not where the picture by John Adams of Dave Salmons MOD setup shows.

And 4. (This is just me talking). I believe I am totally in the minority here but I am as much in opposition of most all of the rhetoric that has been put forth so far in this thread as I can get. (More explanation to come on that later if anyone cares.)

And 5. (Just me talking again). Just because the rule says it is possible to run 20SSH at 1/2" doesn't necessarily mean it is the responsibility of APBA or the Stock outboard racing commission to guarantee we can actually run their. This is a minimum. The minimum weight is also 400 lbs. should the stock Outboard racing commission also procure a handicap for those of us who just can't seem to get to the 400 lb. minimum???

Granted, I am just the starter rope puller and many of our team do not necessarily agree with me, in fact, I can probably say most don't but we put 4 very competitive 20SSH boats on the water at Yelm last weekend (my apologies to Jen for her sad boat:-). in a height range of 3/4" deep and some a little less and some at times were even close to record pace if they would have gotten a good start so I have no complaints regarding the current rules. By the way, Johnny had us covered. He was wicked fast all weekend. Congratulations to him but someday I want to beat him on the course, not in the rule book.

One last thing, look at the APBA records for 20SSH, all but one I believe I can say were set with 302's and that is the one by Dana Holt which I don't know what motor he was running but I believe the rest are all 302's. All set within the current rules so once again, other than figuring out the 321 issues, I do not see a problem with the current rules. Figure out where you need to run then figure out how to make it fast and sell/promote the Yamato classes to potential new drivers as the classes within APBA as giving anyone the most opportunity to grow.

Best regards to all,
Ron McMurphy

[GrandpaRacer]

Shane's long list of variables is exactly the problem! No one has the time or energy to test it all. If we open the spec to allow cooling any way you want with two limitations: 1) you must use lake water and 2) you cannot modify the power head in any way, the creative powers of racers will have this solved in the first 3 races next season. David's solution is a perfect example of the creativity.

[ronronx]

All right, I will bite on that, anyone who wants to mod there stock Yamato motor to run 20SSH and or current OSY also gets to run 3/4" deep. As I said before, just because the minimum is 1/2 doesn't mean it needs to or should be guaranteed by APBA or the SORC. The rest of us get to take our chances at cooling but based on what I saw last weekend regarding the 321, I really don't know if MODs would even help its issues and that is back to Shane's points, someone has to put the time and effort into the testing in order to get more data and get the thing up to par. Shane's list may be part of the problem but it's also the answer at many levels. I honestly think there is an answer but not having or have had a 321 in the trailer doesn't help my position.

CSH is a very good class. OSY as well. But for me, 20SSH in its present form, gave us the most opportunity to grow and improve within the current rules as any class. Allowing modifications to level the playing field just turns 20SSH into a bigger prop war as well as another version of 300SSH and or Novice C. That's not to poke at either, we came up through novice C and both are good classes but that isn't what I expected 20ssH to be.

On another point, at some time soon, we have got to somehow freeze the rules. If we keep changing, modifying and babysitting them, how can we ever actually explain or interpret them to the new people. If there is one thing that I have noted in the last 4 years since I have been around, it is the never ending rule changes. I understand some of it, but a lot is totally unnecessary. The existing rules really aren't that bad. They do need clarification and simplification at some level but for the most part they are OK. Clean them up and stick to them and make this sport promotable.

Disclaimer: all comments are those of Ron M. Only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or thoughts of other family members:-). They tolerate me to a point and then they say just go out to the shop and sand something.

Best Regards,
Ron M.

[GrandpaRacer]

Ron, that comment , go out in the shop and sand something, had me LOL!

[Ram4x4]

Ron, you make some valid points, but we have to look forward. Like it or not, the 321 IS the engine of the future for Yamato classes. Sure, 20ssh and 25ssh will continue to run as long as those old engines exist and enough racers show up to make the class, but there is no entry point for new drivers unless someone is selling theirs. Sure, restricted 302's are doing OK in 20, but the 302 isn't made anymore...that's the point. We keep clinging to these old engines to keep certain classes viable at the same time we're screeching about growth. Total number of racers in any given class is limited to the total number of running engines available. If no new engines are available for a class, there can be no growth in that class.

The cooling issues with the 321 aren't just about being able to run at the class minimum depth. As we've learned, so many factors come into play to determine if it can cool at almost any depth (at least those within the limits of our classes). I have no issues with having to spend time testing and playing with set ups, props, hulls and so on to find more speed...that's racing, but when your engine of choice can easily cook itself because if it's cooling design, it needs a solution. That's an issue we don't need hanging over the heads of every racer running that engine. How enthusiastic do you think new racers will be if they have to keep rebuilding cooked engines? Are we really trying to tell everyone that racing is expensive, so if you can't afford to rebuild engines frequently, quit racing, or stick to classes where that engine will work?

[GrandpaRacer]

The beauty of David Salom's solution is that no permanent engine changes are made. Here's an idea, allow David's solution on the 321 tower only for a year. After a year of racing the SORC can re-evaluate the problem/solution.

[Ram4x4]

I'd say allow it on any Yamato if the owner wants to use it.

[JBM]

The pickup tube on Daves motor is one that I made and used on a Dmod running a 102 lower unit years ago. Bob Montoya showed me this when I first started racing. The tube is clamped in the aluminum bracket so it can be raised, lowered or rotated to find the best spot for water flow.
Maybe we could design one that could be clamped to the cavitation plate, but drilling two small holes is much simpler.

[Mrs blueskyracer]

I am not sure what is happening to page three, I will do my best to get if figured out.

[Howie Nichols]

What the SORC needs is data. For those of you that have the or a low water pickup tube that can be mounted without modification please compile the data and send it to Jeff Brewster or a Commissioner. It would be nice if we had data from different kinds of boats and in different water temps, and even in rough and smooth water so that the SORC can make the correct and informed decision on how to proceed. As of now a low water pickup is ILLEGAL is Stock but it is ok in Modified. I would feel a whole lot better looking at real information to decide if this would help the engine or not.