Tweet
OR.....Maybe the answer is, run it 1" below the bottom, if that is where it will pump, and start developing props to get the remaining speed necessary to compete.
-
-
Throwing it out is the correct term for that idea!Comment
-
When the motors are on the dyno, we can see a performance at different timing points and at different temperatures. In respect to the temps, basically after a certain temp you start to lose power - one of the reasons why the third/fourth lap is generally the slowest.
Thinking out loud why the 321 is a bit quicker than the 302 in the 300 class could be because the 321 can get up to the optimal temp vs the 302 running too cool at the deeper depth of the 300 class. Unfortunately, I can't test this as I don't have a 300 setup.
Would someone who runs 300 shed light on the temps that are run?
I think many of you will be surprised once the independent dyno data is presented at the commission meeting of the 302 vs the 321 and all possible variations between the two in respect to both the torque and overall HPComment
-
I'm sure it will be interesting, but until we get that data, we only have the manufacturers data to go by and in that case the 321 and 302 curves are different (while rated HP is the same).
As for operating temperature, above a certain point, especially in 2-strokes, it's all downhill as the air/fuel mixture travels through the hot internal parts, heating up and reducing power. Engine wear is a concern if the temps are too low, but I don't think any of our engines are even close to these temps (around 160 degrees or less). Short of a ridiculous amount of water flow, I doubt we could even force these engines to run that cool.
However, any concerns about the 321 beating the pants off everything else is a separate concern that needs addressed separately and after the cooling issue is fixed (and based on other information, the 302 is also in the cooling issue realm). Fix the Yamato cooling issues and then we can get on with discussing parity issues.
Dane Lance
700-P
CSH/500ModComment
-
OK, I think in these topsy turvy times we now live in where right is wrong, up is down and Donald Trump is President Elect there is only one obvious answer to our "outboard" cooling issues. That is to simply allow a "means" of water pickup sufficient to cool engine. Aaand, I'm hearing.....just what people are saying.......no it's true folks....... "Eliminate All Height Restrictions" !!!Comment
-
I would not be so quick to allow a modification to a motor before we have a whole bunch more information. My prediction is there will be many more veteran racers adding 321's to their stable of motors than new drivers just getting started. You need resources to compete in Stock outboard. Time, talent and treasure. All three are an advantage but you can win with one or two out of three.
Time = to test and race different combinations of power plants, props set ups and boats.
Talent = to do you own work on boats, motors or good driving
Teasure = the obvious dollar factor, pay for everything to be done and have thresources to try all the combinations ahead of everyone else.
So, be careful how you lobby, be careful how you vote and be aware that what happens in the room in the meeting at the national meeting can be very fluid. What comes out of the meeting can be very different from what you expect.
The goal is to have a level playing field. Be cautious. We can be an emotional bunch of trigger happy band wagoners as much as we think we are thoughtful planners.Comment
-
I've been watching the debate on cooling the 321.To me cooling any motor is a basic need that should have been addressed years ago.Not sure why it's called a major change. As some of you know I'm a new guy that has purchased a good amount of equipment. I don't mind spending the money for the equipment but I don't like the thought of blowing money on burnt up motors. An external cooling system won't put me up with the top guys! But with the unbelievable help I get from the people of the APBA, testing, propellors, experience maybe someday.
Thank you
Jeff SherwinComment
-
Several teams from both East and West Coast have tested the external pick up as discussed on the Model Yamato 321 (and 302) over the past couple fall weekends ..................the teams include Lee Sutter, Lee Tietze, John Adams, Kyle Lewis, Ken McMurphy and myself and Val here in the East.........we are complying the data this week and will be presenting it to the SORC for their review along with you here on Hydroracer. We feel transparency and input helps all of us. We felt having several people from different parts of the USA test the simple cooling system would provide better data than just one source. Preliminarily, i am happy to report the test results were basically consistent and we were successful in cooling the engines......... more to come soon. Thanks to all those involved who want to see our Yamato products cool properly and possibly never to have to worry again about overheating any Yamato engine in Stock Outboarding! A pic of the prototype is attached courtesy of Lee Tietze- Machined Components.Last edited by Matt Dagostino; 11-20-2016, 02:40 PM.
Comment
-
Looks great to me. This water-pickup modification cannot in any way be construed as a ''cheater's'' performance enhancement because it's all above the racing waterline. I've been keenly watching this dialog without comment. Seems to me you have a good final solution. It's akin to permitting fuel pumps (and associated plumbing) on Yamato engines to replace the original gravity-feed fuel tank.
With some of the add-ons to Yamatos (fuel pumps, for example, or enhanced-capacity tanks) the engines have not been ''purely stock'' for a long time. At some point, one needs to acknowledge the reality of current-day ''stock'' racing with Yamato engines, and allow for whatever is necessary for the overall good. Keeping engines cool enough to run without sticking is overall good.
So your choice as Stock Outboard racers is either to accept the engines as they came from Japan and run them in a way (deep enough) that they don't break, or to agree on a (hypocritical) set of compromises that all you racers can agree on and pretend that you're still racing ''Stock'' engines in a Stock Outboard category. (HILARIOUS!)
This entire Yamato stock-engine business harks back to the early 1950s KG-4 days when all sorts of balancing and polishing were permitted, to the extent that not even the best inspectors (such as John Valalchovic and Edgar Rose) could readily determine whether an engine was legal.
Maybe the best solution is to enroll all Yamatos except the sealed engines for 300 SS, into the Mod Division and stop pretending they are ''Stock'' engines. Or maybe create a new division: C Super Stock, with its own set of rules. That's basically what you have now.Last edited by dwhitford; 11-20-2016, 06:47 PM.
-
-
Looks like a lot of effort has gone into trying to gain an advantage for running the 321 by experienced 20SSH racers as high as they can. I believe it is way too early to move in this direction. 3/4" for CSH and 1/2" for 20SSH are height dimension limits - not requirements. I believe more work needs to be done by "racers." We shouldn't be so quick to administrate a change that will likely benefit a few and has the potential to disadvantage more racers than it helps.Comment
-
Gain an advantage??? how so? Sure, buy a 321 and sink it an inch or more so it'll cool...that'll be competitive....not.Dane Lance
700-P
CSH/500ModComment
-
Scott, glad you think of me as an experienced 20ssh driver, warms my heart during this holiday season. I have done this tireless test work to help the sport and take major offense to your comment. We have raced at 3/4 and an INCH in 20 and the motor almost overheated still! What suggestions then do you have if we run that low and still are having over heating issues with a great, affordable and readily available motor that was approved to race at 1/2" in 20SSH without overheating issues?Originally posted by reed28n View PostLast edited by Val16E; 11-22-2016, 07:54 PM.Comment
-
I've got no dog in this race as Runabouts typically do not have an issue with pumping water.
I can tell you that if I raced 20 or C Hydro I would be looking at the rigs that are out front and their set up configuration to understand how they are pumping water. I have cropped a photo of what I think is a top rig that pushes the height rule and still is able to pump. This is common of other such rigs that are performing at the top.
Engine set back with what appears to be a significant amount of tuck. This photo was cropped from a 20ssh driver as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by adamallen View Post
Adam...........you do own a real 321 from Yamato Of England and no doubt understand the new 321 midsection with it's revamped baffle system is not like the old Model 302 midsection. It grossly overheats (even with the bigger brass back pressure nipple) due to it's design at heights on a Hydroplane in classes other than the Stock 300ssh sealed class. If this engine is to function in Stock Outboard racing in Hydroplane classes other than 300ssh which has a height restriction of 1 and 3/8th something has to be done. That's the bottom line my friend. The SORC approved this engine to quickly in my opinion for use in non 300ssh classes with limited testing data so here we sit. Several pro-active teams are trying to solve the problem and present the SORC the solution if they choose to go with it. Perhaps this issue will finally give the SORC a chance cool all our Yamato Models, especially the NEW Model 321 properly. Having to depend on trick props, set back, air trap depth, rocker positioning, lead placement etc etc is crazy and has been crazy for 45 years. Why should the newer folks and most of the experienced ones have to deal with that crap just to cool the motor. No other engines in racing have to deal with cooling.Maybe the Yamato 321 has brought the entire issue to the front burner and this may be be a chance to solve a age old issue with a simple cheap fix. Just a thought. Happy Thanksgiving to you and Kelly..
))
Last edited by Matt Dagostino; 11-23-2016, 08:13 AM.
Comment
-
The age old issue should've been fixed with a height restriction that can work for the masses. I'd say 1" would be a good start.Comment
-
You are not allowed to comment on hydros since you don't race them.
While I'm at the present time against a water pick up tube and against burying them at 1 inch. The lesser of 2 evils would be to allow a water pick up tube.Last edited by Big Don; 11-23-2016, 09:42 AM.
-
-
It would be a lot easier, less time consuming and less expensive to add a water pick up tube as opposed to dropping the max height. That would require ALL NEW testing/props. MAJOR $$$. But I would certainly mandate a STANDARD pick up tube from 1 manufacturer. It needs to be same for everyone, with specs on EVERYTHING and legal on all Yamatos.
Comment
-
Dana...........that's why Lee Tietze- Machined Components is in the equation if this the external pick option is approved............. -
Boy we are going to differ here. If we allow water pick up tubes, we should not mandate a certain type. that should be part of the fun and testing to see what all we can come up with.
Definitely agree on the dropping them to 1 inch is not the right way to go.
-
Comment