Unconfigured Ad Widget

**csh-2z** · 09-25-2016, 06:48 PM

Something else to be concerned about . If the 321 can run in the 20 & C & 25R classes and we make pumping water a non-issue by allowing opening up intake holes or an external water pick up or whatever other cure we come up with. Based on the test data and a couple of early season records set, the 321 might ,in a very short time period, obsolete all the other Yamato's just by dominance. At what cost to the sport?

**GrandpaRacer** · 09-25-2016, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by csh-2z View Post

Something else to be concerned about . If the 321 can run in the 20 & C & 25R classes and we make pumping water a non-issue by allowing opening up intake holes or an external water pick up or whatever other cure we come up with. Based on the test data and a couple of early season records set, the 321 might ,in a very short time period, obsolete all the other Yamato's just by dominance. At what cost to the sport?

That is not going to happen! The 321 has issues beyond its cooling issue. The restricted exhaust and intake make it quieter. I'll take a 302 any day.

**dwhitford** · 09-26-2016, 12:05 AM

The way I get Page 3 to display on my new Windows 10 computer is to RIGHT click on the Page 3 button and then to select ''Open in new window'' when the drop-down menu appears.

**DtwSailor** · 09-26-2016, 07:49 AM

FYI,
Big Rapids MI, CSH with a 321 tower (Joe Pater's 321 tower, my 321 powerhead) Stephen Lisisus driving and 3 laps of testing and 6 laps of racing. running at 3/4. By changing the exhaust snout on the 321 tower and replacing with the 302 snout (Whatever the proper technical term, to me it's a snout, brass fitting on the back of the tower), we were able to keep engine no higher than 385 degrees, and Steve drove hard the second heat, taking second overall. I believe some of my testing did not reveal the same results due to the propellor that I was using. At this time, further testing is needed, and being conducted, but I don't think we need to add any modifications to the motor other than changing the exhaust port.
MD

**guedo499** · 09-26-2016, 03:04 PM

Pink is Temp. Lake Lawrence, 1.25 Mile, 4 laps -

Race: OSY (Running CSH setup)
Boat: Falcon
Propeller: Baseline
Depth: 15/16 deep
Motor: 302 #49
DA: Appx 1250ft
Total time: Appx 4:42,5

Screenshot_1.png

Attached Files

**Matt Dagostino** · 10-05-2016, 08:18 AM

...................John Adams, any plans to have your SORC Commissioners present a proposal to the SORC to implement a external water pick up to help with the lifelong water/cooling problems of our Yamato engines, especially the NEW model Yamato 321. Talking on Hydroracer is great but it takes momentum from key members of the SORC and racing community to MAKE IT HAPPEN. The 20ssh class is the one that has the most impact being at 1/2" height. But even the other classes using the Yamato 321 struggle to both cool and get enough water through them under racing conditions. Since this is the motor now available from Yamato we need to make it function in the classes it is legal in without fear of burning it up.......you seem to be a voice of reason..

**DtwSailor** · 10-06-2016, 06:37 AM

I sit on the 300 advisory board or whatever it's called, and I don't see the need to change any rules for the class. There is no problem keeping the engine cool in the 300 class with the 2 bladed propellor. We also have a rule freeze in place for that class, so we can start the debate. We are testing again next weekend, and I don't believe we need to change the rules for an internal water pickup. Ill provide the data to show that changing the exhaust port is enough. This has been proven in testing in Big Rapids over 3 heats testing, 6 laps racing.

**DtwSailor** · 10-06-2016, 01:21 PM

Since it's October before an election, read my lips....(LOL) There are NO ISSUES OF OVERHEATING in the 300SSH class. None reported. The heating issues are when we take them out of the 300 class and use in CSH, 20SSH and other hydro classes. I have not had a heating issue when it ran in Jesup in CSR. We have seen heating when at 1/2 but have figured it out. I would not recommend any rule changes at this point. feel free to email me directly at hydrodriver226M@outlook and i'll give you my cell to discuss.

**GrandpaRacer** · 10-06-2016, 02:14 PM

Thanks DTw, this makes it clear. So allowing cooling water into this external port would make the 321 useful in CS andl 20ss as well as being able to run unmodified in 300ss. This would make every one happy. ( probably not &#128512

**deeougee** · 10-07-2016, 06:04 AM

Drop down to 3/4" for 20ssh? Totally against the idea. Don't like 1/2" for that matter. Adding an external pickup? Never had a problem cooling my Y80 at 0 height back in the day, still run it above the bottom for kilo runs and no problems cooling, there's a lot more than just water at play when it comes to cooling a 2 stroke engine. If we are going to drop the engine further we will be at CSH height, why not just get rid of 20ssh altogether and make the 321 the only engine, CSH/CSR, and run more heats? This is about for 321 owners wanting more water time. The time has come to take a serious look at the engine/class structure and number of heats run in each class. I've said it before, par down to 4 classes with current production motors and increase the number of heats run in each class. Nice and simple instead of this convoluted mess we currently have in stock. It's a turnoff for potential new participants.

**Big Don** · 10-18-2016, 01:06 PM

Deleted post. I have an answer to my question or concern.

**Brian10s** · 10-19-2016, 08:19 AM

I have tried to stay out of this since the start figuring that this was the latest in the "offseason" panic button topics. But since it seems to have some legs and the idea keeps getting presented to modify the existing stock water pickup process on all Yamato's, why stop at that? If the idea of modifying the Yamato's water pickup process is acceptable (and I'm not saying it is the way to go, just taking it to the next step) why not go all in and fix the other problem the Yamato's have - handling with the club foot. Modified has already solved both problems (cooling and tracking) by putting a nose cone and shaping the foot. Why not take that tested and proven process and move it to Stock. All the internals are the same, and I'm sure there can be specs created for dimensions and what can or can't be done. There goes all your cooling concerns at all current heights. And we would not need to change "Motor Height Safety Rule" for parity or engine longevity reasons.

And yes, I realize that some will jump on this as not "Stock" and should never been considered. I don't disagree with the "not Stock" part. But if we are considering other options, then this one should go on the table as well.

**Big Don** · 10-19-2016, 10:33 AM

So with that said above. I'll jump on the other side for this post.

Why do we have to do anything?

If the 321 engine is faster than the 302, I'm taking peoples word that it is. So what that in order to get the 321 to pump you have to run a little lower right now (until the Pater of the world figure it out) wouldn't that keep the parity close then? If the 302 and the 321 are close on speed if the 321 has to run a 1/4 lower to pump is that a bad thing so every 302 driver does not have to buy 321 kits or buy a 321 engine?

Remember, this is coming from a guy who still has his drivers running Yamato 80's and really does not have a clue about the 302's and 321's.

**Charlie Pater** · 10-19-2016, 05:43 PM

Some information from my brother�s 20 ssh testing and experience.

With the little testing Joe has done with the 321, without doing anything fancy he has been able to make it cool at � inch below the bottom and run at 302 speeds. The 302 and 80 have already been proven to cool at � inch below the bottom. We believe the three motors and the Sidewinder (running at prescribed height) are at the best parity running at those heights ie 321 at ��, 302 at �� and 80 at ��.

Consider what would happen if the Yamato heights were to be made � inch below the bottom. Based on our testing, setting the height at � inch would most likely make the 321 and the Sidewinder the preferred motors with the Sidewinder having a slight advantage, especially on long courses. It would for sure obsolete the 80 and the 302 from being able to effectively compete at the Nationals level in the 20 ssh class.

Since the 321 can be made to cool at � inch depth and be at parity with the other motors, why would we want to change anything? Currently, the 20 class has excellent motor parity with the existing rules. Just choose to run your 321 at � inch � no rule change necessary.

As a side note, Joe did win a 20 ssh national championship with his 302 set about or slightly lower than � inch below the boat bottom.

**Big Don** · 10-20-2016, 10:31 AM

Matt, agree you have been trying to get the 20 height lowered for years. Yes some of us and countered what you were proposing in Seattle. My argument was we ran at Grass Lake Nationals in some of the roughest finals water in a long time and ran at max height and did not have a cooling issue. That was our argument. Were we protecting our investment, maybe somewhat because, it is possible to run an 80 engine at max height. We worked our tails off in doing so. Are there risk, Yes. But that is the decision every one of us has to make at every race. Same as making the decision when to run your best prop vs your 2nd, 3rd wheels. I took it as, hey lets penalize the guys working hard at this and level the playing field. I could make the same argument against you back then, that you were trying to handicap us because you couldn�t figure it out and we did. I could make the same argument now. You said you have a 321 on order or have one, I could make a statement that you�re looking for an easy way to figure out the pumping issue. My point is, before you jump on your high horse and start accusing us of protecting the Yamato 80, you were one of us a year ago protecting it against the Sidewinder. I just think it�s very ironic that now that you are going with a 321 your willing to make comments about protecting the Yamato 80�s. It honestly pisses me off.

I agree the 321 appear to be running hotter. I agree it needs to be looked at closely. I agree we need guys that have run them and have info to share it with us�guys like Pater, Peters, J.M. Kelly, Lewis, etc. I want to make a decision based on solid info and try to get it right the first time.

For the record, I was the one that made the motion to make the 321 legal. Because we had no choice. Based on my memory, in 2013 there were still 302�s available. By 2014 there were no 302�s (could be wrong there may have been a few) and the first 321 was in the US. I believe a few drivers ran the 321 in the 302 class in 2014. I personally witnessed this at 2 MHRA races. In their opinion and in mine the engines were very compatible in the 300 class. We then had Joe Pater do some testing in the Fall of 2014. In 2015 the 321 was here even though we were struggling to get them imported. Since we could not get any 302�s and the only thing we could get were the 321�s we needed to approve the engine. We had stifled any growth in the Yamato classes for 2 years and guys we waiting for engines. We know the engine was different and that we may have to address performance issues but I don�t think anyone saw that the engines would run hotter.

Implying the Sidewinder got approved because we didn�t lower the height on the 80�s?

For the record the reason the 80�s were the fasted in the elims at Hinton. All the fast 302�s & Sidewinders were prequalified. Along with that, I know J. Michael, Lewis, and clan out West are fast and were not there. Did you watch the finals. Holt & Pater were faster than the 80�s. Donny nailed 2 starts, drove his butt off, has probably the best boat in this modern era for 20.(Just my plug for Pavlick boats) Pater hits a log and finishes with 2 blades, Holt sits in second because he knows he has it won. The 80�s are not the fastest. The only reason we have not switch is because I don�t have the time to switch to 302�s. We know to be one of the top guys will probably take weekends upon weekend of testing to catch the fast 302�s. I just don�t have the time. (BTW, we have 3 � 302�s sitting waiting in the basement)

The easiest thing for me to do and probably safest, along with the cheapest is to lower or put an external pick up on. It would make my life a lot easier. But is that the right thing to do? Pater, Holt, J. Michael, Lewis, etc have it figured out in 302. Do we handicap them? Is that fair to the guys that have done the work to figure it out? If the fast guys come on here and tell me (us) that it�s the right thing to do, I�d feel a lot better knowing we didn�t just give everyone a path to easy street.

You know there will not be a unified front, there seldom is. That is why the more data we have by several people, the better and easier the decision will be.

Ram4x4....I also believe based on the info that has been shared with me that the 321 is faster, lowering the 321 � inch to pump and not the 302, and the 302 & 321 are pretty equal. If this is not true I�ve been given bad info. So what I�m hearing is if both engines are running at equal heights the 321 will be faster. So putting an external water pick up on or lowering them all to � or 1 inch, we have just made the 321 the engine of choice. That is why we need as much info as we can get. Oh and if we do that, we had better make sure we can get a 100 321 conversion kits.

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment