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

[DtwSailor]

I wanted to start another thread outside of the BOD thread regarding the 321.

So everyone knows, I was on the 300 committee that recommended the 321 for the 300 class. I was one of the first ones to buy a 321 when they were available. I also was one of the first to buy a 302 when the 300 class was first past. I can also neither confirm or deny that my latest GPS waterproof fanny pack used in testing and racing has a cup holder.

This year, I have tried a few items with the 321 at my own cost and risk

#1 Jesup: Run the 321 in 20SSH at smudge below 1/2 with 3 blade prop: she heated up with a a top speed of 64.2 (It was a fun ride till throttle got real spongey like out of turn 1)

#2a Constantine, Run the 321 in 20SSH at a smidgen below 3/4 with same prop, restrictor, she heated up and GPS lost batteries

#2b Constantine Run the 302 Powerhead in 20SSH on the 321 tower at 3/4, restrictor, and she heated up (same prop)

Confirmation that the tower and not the powerhead is causing the heating issue. It's not a mater of water, it's the extra baffle that's causing back pressure to let the water heat up, raising temps. Again, I'm not a mechanical engineer, this was sent in a memo from TJ.

#3 Run the 321 with restrictor on Sunday Dayton, heat 1 at 1/ 3/8 with a top speed of 50.3 on 3/4 mile course (same prop) Nice cool engine in 91 temps with high humidity. (pulled off as to not be embarrassed by multiple people lapping me)

#4 Run the 321 without restrictor on Sunday, Dayton, heat 2 at 1 3/8 with top speed of 60.1 on 3/4 mile course (same prop) Nice cool engine in 91 temps with high humidity. (Ran wide and slow for 1 lap to get cleaner water, and was lapped by Dana Holt only)

I left a VM and email to Brewster that for the next national meeting, I would like to present this data along with a few more, to propose that the stock 321 with shaved gear foot be allowed in 20SSH without a restrictor as a temporary measure to allow 300 drivers to take same investment and at least get another class entry in the weekend. It' comes down to parity for now for the next year. We have a boat load of new 300 drivers, we need a class to get them out on the water more. We allow Mercury's to be jacked up in ASH, let's allowed the 321 to be lowered without restrictor in 20SSH, and even 25SSR.

Play nice and chip away at this.

[pav225]

Mike,
What do you think of simply getting more heats/weekend in 300ssH? Could be facilitated by requiring 2 heat elims, 2 heat consolation, and 2 heat final.
That would keep the racing close and competitive while providing more boat time for newer racers. May also keep it safer as there won't be such a large discrepancy in speed.
Just a few thoughts ...
- Mike
P.S. Thanks for all the testing and input!

[jswain3]

Now we need more "extra" heats every weekend in 300ssh? Because of new drivers deserving more boat time? Didn't realize it was only new racers running 300ssh...

This class already gets an extra heat per day at MHRA races....I suppose that isn't enough!

[DtwSailor]

I'm not talking about getting more heats for the new guys I'm talking about getting the 321 motor to run in 20ssh without overheating with the 321 tower. While 300 class is growing that's great but we need to also focus on growing other classes! There was only 8 or 9 20ssh in Dayton and fewer in PA 2 weeks ago. The 25Ssr class is lower this year in my humble opinion. We got new racers with new motors. Let's get them in some other classes where hard work, testing, prop section and all the other factors come into play. Unless everyone is happy with 4 or 5 boat fields...

[jswain3]

Agree to disagree. The 300ssh class continues to grow in the Midwest while we keep losing CSH entries. Changing the heights for CSH will only fuel this trend. Keep up the growth & fun in 300, it's great. Truly is, but it's been great at the expense of what was the largest class in APBA. At least in the Midwest.

[Tunnelman801]

I' am not for any engine running against the Y80,without a restrictor plate,in the 20ssh class. Just last year the Y80 was the engine of chore,and the Y80's racers have only one class to run in.why not make another class for the Y80? My son started NEW in the 20ssh, without any boat racing experience and he would like to get out on the water more! William Anderson

[Matt Dagostino]

Mike Deck..........you are on the money! The Yamato 321 is the NEW available engine in CSH-20ssh-CSR-25ssr and it should be made to be the sole MOTOR OF CHOICE by the SORC since they approved it last year. The cooling issue is a major issue and must be resolved this year. The Yamato 80 and Yamato 102 while ole workhorses are almost 40 years old and long out of production. The SORC has to wake up and either lower the class transom heights to solve the 'cooling" issue or figure a way to push more water through the engine to cool it at the existing approved class heights. My team races both Yamato 80's and Yamato 102's and have no problem doing the right thing and making the Yamato 321 the leader of the pack! Having the old motors compete in 20ssh/CSH is great but the future is in NEW engines not 40 year old obsolete Yamato's!

[Ram4x4]

Someone suggested either cutting out, or drilling through the baffle in the 321 tower. That's a destructive test and one that would change the exhaust characteristics (whether it would boost or lower power is unknown) and I don't think that's a good idea.

Someone said to drill out the water intake hole and fair it a little, but that's destructive too (but could be fixed back to stock dimensions if it doesn't work).

Then, someone suggested a pick up tube, which is an add-on (non destructive), but that idea seemed to get a lot of nay sayers (which I don't understand why). What's the big deal with allowing people to boost their cooling with a pick up tube? It would be cheap, easy and non destructive. Going on the assumption this would work, it would also mean no one has to change rules for shaft depths in classes. If anything, I'd say a pick up tube makes the most logical "next test". If it works, then it's a simple thing, allow racers to add it if they want to. Obviously 321 owners will, but 302 or 102 owners wouldn't have to.

[GrandpaRacer]

We know the 321 will cool properly if it gets water, so adding an external pick up tube will solve the problem and not require any other irreversible changes. You drill and tap a hole in the tower at the place designed for this and run a hose from the pick up tube to the fitting. Done. Then when the SORC comes up with a better solution the motor is whole and ready. It all seems so simple. Except the 321 would now run real well at 1/2 inch in 20ssH, Real well! If the 302 is not allowed to cool this way, the 321 may be faster in 20ssH. It won't be faster in CSH.

[jswain3]

I know I'll be probably the only person with this perspective....it is what it is

Let me say first to everyone smoking their 302's in CSH out West - we don't have pumping issues at 3/4". It seems like more of a problem for you guys. Not for everyone.

-300ssh is a slow/ bumpy CSH ride. Almost the same boat and 10mph off the top of the CSH field. A ton different than CSH. Not the same difference for 20ssh, it's very similar. Lowering the max height for 20ssh will only make these two classes even more similar in speed/ride.
-It has effectively shrunk our CSH participation here down to less than a full field at most MW races.
-Drivers are not for the most part stepping up from 300 and into CSH. Mostly only 20ssh. Guys that run both 300 & CSH with the same engine are all out there for a boat ride and...data...a lap down
-The 321 bone stock engine has no place in CSH except in local racing. That's for the 300ssh racers. Don't change our motor situation nationally just for a few guys going out for a boat ride.
-321's are not any more available currently than a used 302. Unless being on back order means readily available to some?
-Lowering the height in CSH again will make it a dog. Do it and watch the CSH class get even smaller

We need more testing and more data before our elected representatives start implementing changes. Lets take our time. AND LETS NOT ADD A MOD EXTERNAL WATER PICK UP.

Jordan Swain not Jesse.

[Ericwienczak]

I am a rookie and have been running 300 and CSH..and being pretty competitive in csh . It isnt that much of a different boat ride. 10 mph difference is a little high. More like 4-5 . Were seeing 61-62 mph in 300

Although not running 321 in C , its not about changing motor heights in C it is about getting the cooling issue fixed so guys like me, dont have to own 2 motors to run 2 classes. If there is no class for the 321 to move up into then rookies like myself will be stuck with 1 motor running 1 class .

[jswain3]

Eric, I understand. I have several motors for one class. I've raced one class for ten years. My CSH is not close to the same ride as a 300, from top speed, punch & torque, it's sluggish. Definitely more than 4-5 mph for the top running rigs nationally.

Anyways dude, I'm looking forward to Grass Lake & hope to chat more about this with you guys.

See you soon!

[Ram4x4]

"AND LETS NOT ADD A MOD EXTERNAL WATER PICK UP."

Why? What is the aversion to an external pickup if it works? Yamatos are flow pumpers, if the external pickup ensures no Yamato ever overheats again, then why is anyone against it? With the pickup the Yamato can be cooled at any height setting, so that would not have to be discussed or considered as part of the solution.

I understand it's a "stock" class, but even 300ssh, arguably the most stock of stock is running the shaft higher than even the Japanese do (for which the thing was designed for to begin with), so realistically adding a "mod" pickup means nothing in the end. It certainly isn't going to add performance or speed.

[dholt]

First and foremost, sounds like everyone needs to pump the brakes a little here. There's one core issue...and that's how to get the 321 to pump at race heights above 1 3/8". Somehow it's evolved into dropping the heights for other classes, giving sealed 321s another place to race, etc...
In the words of Aaron Rodgers...we need to RELAX. It's the first season this engine has been legal. Judging by our past track record with engines, it's got another 30 years to go...so I'm sure it'll get straightened out and engine owners will get on the water just fine.

Currently, there's no problem for sealed 321s in 30ssH. It's deep, it pumps...and guess what...it's FASTER than the 302. The facts are this...the 321 set 2 records on the 3/4 and 1 mile courses at Dayton last weekend. First year out of the box and it breaks 2 records over an engine that's been running for 3 years. Faster...pure and simple. The eye test says the same thing. If that trend continues, then current and future drivers will be buying 321s and that will free up a ton of 302 engines for CSH/20ssH/CSR/25ssR.

Next...common perception is that the 300ssH class is chock full of rookies/newbies. Well, that's really not the case. Below are the current 48 drivers who've participated in 2016. Only the 8 highlighted names are people who either I don't know or I know have a raced only a year or two. I've been around 48 years, so trust me. Not only that....nearly every other name is a driver who races 1 or more OTHER classes and/or is a veteran racer.
What 300 has really become is a place for kids getting out of J...younger drivers too heavy for AX or A, veteran drivers who still want a boat ride and rookies. But rookies are the big minority on this list. I'm not making a judgment....just looking at the facts. In terms of getting boats on the water, it's been a huge success. But look at who they are.


Stephen Lisius Ryan Sutherland
Mikey Pavlick Tim Schmeltz
Mac Pfalzer Ryan Welllings
David Biagi James Klein
David Hale
John Sherwin
Joel Kiddy
Terry Kerr
Jack Cavanaugh
Jeff Brewster
Michelle Snyder
Joe Johnson
Lily Deware
Tom Johnston
Tom Sutherland
James Cummings
Mike Pavlick
Dave Deck
Carson Fabro
Jeff Dobis
Logan Sweeney
Grant Hearn
Jack Deck
Jeff Conant
Steven Genter
Dean Sutherland
Robert Lisius
Cassandra Olson
Brian Vincent
Cole Olson
Nik Miskerik
Jason Bonano
Eric Wienczak
Pat Brians
Elek Hutchinson
Christine Brewster
Mike Deck
Tracy Trolian
Grace Lisius
Bob Milne
Spencer Davidson
Michael Sweeney
Jacob Alkema
Larry Klein

[GrandpaRacer]

Dana, how has the 321 performed against the 302 in OSY and CSH in mid west and east? Out West it sits in the trailers for theses classes and 300ss is not run in the NW.
John Adams

[dholt]

The 321 isn't run in 20ssh or CSH out here because there's really no need. Anyone who wants to run those classes has an 80, 102 or 302. There are motors galore...easier to find one on HR than order new 321 from Japan.
We don't run OSY on this side of the Mississippi unless you go to the Pro Nationals.
Why doesn't the 300ssH class run in the northwest? What's preventing it?

[GrandpaRacer]

In the NW longbefore the 300ss class was formed we have been running what we call Novice C. Novice C is any C motor with the club owned propellor. Propellers are all the same and drawn for each heat. We have a gentlemens agreement that once you start winning Novice C too much you drop out and run with the fast guys in CSH. It is cheaper than 300ss. John Adams

[GrandpaRacer]

Maybe the name "Novice C" itself has kept the fast guys from from even trying to run it😀

[GrandpaRacer]

From the data presented on various threads on HR it seems clear the heating issue associated with the 321 is caused by the tower. The difference in the tower is the baffle to make it quiet. If someone cut the baffle out at the entrance to the snout, I predict this motor will cool the same as a 302 and perform the same. Cooling the same, still leaves the other generic cooling issue that all 102s and 302s have.

[pav225]

Fyi...
We just had (12) CSHs at Beloit. That's the most we had in years.
I think we can keep working to grow the 300ssH class, while still working to get CSH back to the high boat counts it used to enjoy.

[GrandpaRacer]

Why do you think there is such a low turn out in CSH?
John Adams

[Wakefield 2015]

final results Sat at Beloit:

CSH

Sat: 1 Joe Pater 2 Ryan Burdick 3 Mike Makus 4 Mark Gabrielson 5 Michelle Snyder 6 Kent Gabrielson 7 Alex Scheffler 8 James Shallcross 9 Cassie Olson 10 John Korbus 11 Michael Mackey

no Pavlick's..... :-)

[jswain3]

It appears to be cooling for you guys in the North West. I don't believe that is causing this class to lose interest in in our regions (6&7) however.

What I do believe is there is a definite path to running your Yamato's at 3/4" in CSH without sticking pistons all the time. There is also a way for the 321 to do this successfully without changing rules and cutting up engines. In my humble experience the boat & the angle of the transom made the biggest difference in cooling. But after seeing Guedos post about how many Pistons he's buying it makes me wonder. Has John been having to do this all these years with his CSH & 20ssh?

[halestorm]

#1 Jesup: Run the 321 in 20SSH at smudge below 1/2 with 3 blade prop: she heated up with a a top speed of 64.2 (It was a fun ride till throttle got real spongey like out of turn 1)

#2a Constantine, Run the 321 in 20SSH at a smidgen below 3/4 with same prop, restrictor, she heated up and GPS lost batteries

#2b Constantine Run the 302 Powerhead in 20SSH on the 321 tower at 3/4, restrictor, and she heated up (same prop)

Confirmation that the tower and not the powerhead is causing the heating issue. It's not a mater of water, it's the extra baffle that's causing back pressure to let the water heat up, raising temps. Again, I'm not a mechanical engineer, this was sent in a memo from TJ.

#3 Run the 321 with restrictor on Sunday Dayton, heat 1 at 1/ 3/8 with a top speed of 50.3 on 3/4 mile course (same prop) Nice cool engine in 91 temps with high humidity. (pulled off as to not be embarrassed by multiple people lapping me)

#4 Run the 321 without restrictor on Sunday, Dayton, heat 2 at 1 3/8 with top speed of 60.1 on 3/4 mile course (same prop) Nice cool engine in 91 temps with high humidity. (Ran wide and slow for 1 lap to get cleaner water, and was lapped by Dana Holt only)

Can you please define hot and cool? Thank you.