Yamato Cooling Tests

[Lee Sutter]

If the Yamato 321 is faster then the Yamato 302, how did they do in CSH, 20SSH and OSY-400 at the following races:
-APBA National Championship,
-UIM World Championship,
-USTS National Championship,
Zero, Zero, and Zero.
I wonder why?

[Matt Dagostino]

[QUOTE=Charlie Pater;n451431]

Testing the 20ssh at home verified the Jesup numbers i.e. the 321 runs a minimum of 1 MPH faster than the 302 with the same setup. Some 321 testing was done with the C hydro at home. The results were the 321 was at a minimum 1 MPH faster than the 302 and the fastest speed he ever recorded with the C hydro on Paw Paw Lake with Joe’s “test” propeller.



Charlie.............the data Joe Pater presented the SORC at the National Meeting in Detroit which in large part led to the passing of the upgraded Model 321 does not jive with your Teams report posted on Hydroracer?? Please re-read Joe's report to the SORC showing basically identical performance between the to Series 300 Yamato Models........302 vs. 321

Our data to date shows the 321 has a major overheating issue and is no beast on the racecourse. That is why our team is just trying to keep cooling on 'the front burner'. As you know 'parity' testing is soooooo tough as everybody seems to come up with different conclusions from all over the country. One thing for sure, the 321 has a overheating issue due to the updated midsection and the simple and cheap external kit works (as you now know having one)......Hope all is well. Matt

[Matt Dagostino]

Charlie.........the way i read the data and the way it was presented in Detroit at the meeting the engines were very close! Also not in the data but presented verbally during the report was the fact that the Pater 302 engine used for the tests was a 'good engine' but not the KILLER engine. Again this parity banter is fun but as we all know every engine is different. No 302 is the same as the next one and no Merc 15's are the same as no two Yamato 80's are the same etc etc I will say as far as performance Joe's report was fair and i agree with his conclusion that the engine was 'close' and should go forward with the new midsection. I just thought a longer study period would have been nice. Unfortunately the overheating was not detected during his winter tests. Why can't we just go back to the good ole days of 'one engine per class'. Ugh.

[Big Don]

Matt, something else to remember, that data is a year old.

[Charlie Pater]

Don't know what happened to my intended post here (maybe forgot to hit enter) but Session 3 Set 2 is the test where the complete 321 with a profiled gearcase was used. That test showed the 321 to be 0.7 MPH faster than the 302 motor with the same gearcase.

[Ram4x4]

A link to Joe's report was posted here on the forums on 7/15/2015. Below is that report (liberally reformatted for easier reading). Of note: The 321 powerhead was put on the 302 tower for this test, so this apparently was not a pure 321 as tested:

TESTING DATA
321 TESTING
LOCATION PAW PAW LAKE
302 ran 1^st with acceleration speed and rpm all documented. 321 power head simply put on
302 tower and gear foot.

TEST SESSION #1

Conditions:
10 mph wind out of east – cool 40 deg.
Water temp – 48 deg.
Conditions did not vary much throughout.
Power Head Testing against 302 using 53M Pavlick hydro.

1^st set:
Motor ran as sent with uncut head and timing at 195.
I used the carb and reed cage and cowl off of the 302 for this 1^st session.
Speed: -1.8
Acceleration: -1.6 seconds off (40-65)
Rpm: -260
Multiple runs with both power heads for true results.

2^nd set:
Increased timing to 230 on 321. No other changes.
Speed: -1.3 (an increase in speed of ˝ mph)
Acceleration: -1.0 (an increase in punch by over ˝ sec)
RPM: -200 (an increase of 60 RPM)

3^rd set:
Changed head from 302 (cut head)
Speed: -.8 (an increase of another ˝ mph)
Acceleration: -.6 (an increase of .4 sec)
RPM: -130 (an increase 70 rpm)

Conclusion :
After 1^st set of testing:
Power head is decent.
Only off 0.8 in speed without doing much to the motor. I would buy this motor.


TEST SESSION #2

Conditions:
5 mph wind out of SE - cold 39 deg.
Water temp - 41 deg.
Same boat, test with the 302 1^st for baseline .

1^st set:
Ran same set up as third set last session.
Speed: -.7 (one tenth closer to 302 than last test session)
Acceleration: -.6 (same as last time)
RPM: -120 (almost same 10 better)

2^nd set:
Changed carb reed cage and cowl to 321 set up
Speed: -.4 (.3 faster hmmmm)
Acceleration: -.4 (slightly better)
Rpm: -70 (50 better)

3^rd set:
Prop testing:
Did not see differences in props from the 302 to the 321.

Conclusion :
The new carb/reed cage/cowl set up is definitely the way to go. The motor was quieter and
more importantly more user friendly.

I did not have to make adjustments to the carb to get it to run to potential. (Conditions
changed and normally I would have to change the carb setting on the 302).


TEST SESSION #3

Conditions :
Wind calm - cool 40 deg.
Water temp - 38 deg.

1^st set:
Ran same set up as last session.
3^rd set used as baseline.

2^nd set:
Changed tower housings to new 321 tower (used 302 lu)
Speed: + ˝
Acceleration: even
Rpm: + 80

Note: really quiet with the carb and tower set up.

3^rd set:
Ran 302 as normally would
Speed: -.2
Acceleration: about even or slightly better (+.2)
Rpm: -30

Conclusion :
This is a great set up. The motor is quieter, it is easier to run (carb setting doesn’t change with
changing conditions (and as tested with cut head, it was as fast as the current 302), so out of
the box its competitive.

I would like to retest in the spring or down in Florida, with some warm water testing but don’t
think there will be any diff results as results don’t normally change much for me with the 302s
in cold or warm water testing.

I recommend we immediately make this a legal motor in the 20, C and 302ss classes. And
Please put one on order for me.

Thanks
Joe Pater

[GrandpaRacer]

You are almost totally correct but in the Third test session, 2nd run, they did use the 321 tower. So in one of the nine runs it was the right tower. The water temp was 38 degrees so it probably did cool.

[Ram4x4]

That is the report as it was posted. If whomever created the document omitted the 321 tower part, that I can't say.

[65R]

Yep, csh-2z and I absolutely don't agree😀 Pretty sure he knows that. Maybe I should have been more clear. I don't believe that someone buying a new motor should have to run at 1" deep compared to someone running either 1/2" or 3/4". Pretty sure if that where the case, it would be pretty darn hard to sell the sport/class to a new racer.

[pav225]

Maybe it's in the data and I missed it, so please let me know if it's already out there...

With the cooling tests, has anyone tested their 321 then put on 302 with same prop and setup to compare the speeds?

Curious to see if anyone has that info.

- Mike

[GrandpaRacer]

We did not do that test. We compared external cooling to normal cooling on a 20ssh with a 321, a 321 hybrid as a CSH, and a 302 as a CSH. Each in 3 different boats. Our focus was on cooling but we did record speed deltas too.

[GrandpaRacer]

The only published direct comparison of 302 to 321 like you describe I think is in Joe Pater's data posted above. Look at Test Session 3 and compare runs #1 and run#2. That shows the 321 is 1/2 mph faster. When I look at the horsepower curve I would expect slower corner speed, therefore it could be equivalent if it cooled.

[Matt Dagostino]

PAV..............at Tabor City our team switched midsections on our REAL 321 later in the weekend and at comprabile height did not see any speed difference on the race course on the GPS.. But of course we cooled much better and could compete. Not a good answer to your question but the 302 midsection didn't seem to perform any differently but of course cooled better.

[Shane_B]

SO - if testing shows the 321 is slightly stronger/faster than the 302 (ONCE cooling issue resolved), my understanding that 302s can be converted to a 321 for a modest cost (I think under $400 for reed cage/cowl and tower - as Ken pointed out in earlier post no difference between 302 and 321 powerheads except the reed cage for mounting the baffled cowl). So parity can potentially be resolved (at least for 302s) by upgrading with 321 kit for a modest sum - and our current 302s can continue to race very competitively for the next couple of decades converted to 321s (once COOLING issue resolved). Alas, Y80s and 102s out there not part of that potential parity equation. Bottomline, let's resolve this 321 cooling issue and continue to gather/post 302/321 performance comparison data so SORC can make future parity decisions once cooling is no longer an issue... I would like to see 14mm heads approved for 321 conversions too - gives the community better choice of sparkplugs.

[GrandpaRacer]

Shane I think the SORC determined all the parts are interchangeable, so you should be able to run the 14 mm head. This may not be the case in the sealed 300ss class, I just don't know. John Adams

[seanp3]

Yamato hydro classes are the only classes having cooling issues. They cool fine on the runabouts. It's been shown the external tube slows the boat slightly compared to one without the external cooling tube. It's been shown using the external tube cools the motor at 300 degrees even when tested at 1/2 inch. If using the external tube is slower than without I don't see why you would be apposed to it. Let's at least get this passed as optional. You don't have to use if you don't want. It would be sure nice to have some peace of mind and not have to look back at the motor every lap to see if it's cooling or not. It will make the Yamato hydro classes better, in my view.

[Matt Dagostino]

Big Don........the external kit is in final prototype testing now. I have a kit as do several members involved in the testing. We are in what our test teams call Phase 2. This phase will in a week or abouts have our final data ready to submit to the SORC. At that time Tietze will have a plan for distribution pending approval of course by the SORC. The kit we now have is just basically a more streamlined version and i believe Brewster has a pic of it. They are NASCAR quality as you would expect from Lee Tietze!! As a footnote Joe Pater has one of the early prototype tubes made by Tietze

[Big Don]

Matt, my question was in regards to the 321 conversion kits. Not the water pick up tubes.

[Shane_B]

Anderson had a 321 conversion kit for sale - https://hydroracer.net/forums/forum/m...onversion-kit;. Yamato UK also sells a 321 conversion kit for 342 GBP (about $485) - but currently sold outhttp://www.yamatoracing.co.uk/special-offers/4536983470

[65R]

So, if I understand this correctly, the worry is, a new racer or veteran will be able to buy a new 321 and run it at 1/2" in 20ssh. Instead of the current scenario where only a few top racers are able to run at 1/2". Isn't it parity that all 302/321 should be able to run at same height?

[GrandpaRacer]

We can run the 302 in 20ss at 1/2inch too and yup it is fast. But a 321 dragging a pickup tube also at 1/2 inch will be slower, essentially the same as a 302 at 3/4. So the only fare thing will be to require all to run with the pick up tube.

[ryan_4z]

I would suspect that a push to require this mod will only bring about more stout opposition.

[seanp3]

I'm in favor of making it optional. That way if you toast your motor it's on you. You have no one else to blame. If you can cool and don't need it - more power to you.

[stockc]

Charlie

Previously I asked whether ALL cited testing was done with a complete 321 including power head and center section.

You replied "The 321 testing was with the 321 powerhead and midsection"

The data presented is much appreciated yet was difficult for me to decipher. But it seems those smarter than I, after looking at the data have concluded that either none or possibly one test was with a complete 321. If any, could you please note all tests not done with a complete 321 as described above?

When I initially asked the question, in my mind I was referring to all data as essentially testing data, including what was provided during racing. Was the racing data that was offered done with a complete 321?

Thanks,

Ken

[Charlie Pater]

Sorry about the confusion. The test data presented by Ram4x4 was for tests conducted in 2015. Test Session 3; 2nd Set is the only test of the 321 (Powerhead and midsection) with a profiled gear case. That Session showed the 321 to be 0.7 MPH faster than the 302 run with the same profiled gear case.

The information presented in my post of 12-02-16 was for a complete 321 running with a profiled gear case (321 power head and midsection).

[pav225]

Nathan,
I think most, if not all, would agree that it is very important to have cooling for the Yamatos. Nothing would frustrate a new person (or veteran) more than not finishing heats or having to run extremely low to get the motor to work. I admit that I was Old School and thought that cooling properly was just part of racing. Like having a safe set-up, changing gear oil, and testing to find a good prop. After hearing the comments, and having great respect for Grandpa Racer and his approach, I think it's wise to move forward and help the motors cool.

Some racers are also concerned that any changes to rules/cooling will impact parity. As we have seen in other classes, this can cause people to get frustrated and leave the class, Category, or boat racing. While it's not very scientific, we do get to see SW20, Y80s, and Y302/321s race each other throughout the summer. For the most part, parity seems to be working pretty well.

Below is some thinking on how changes may impact 20ssH. Don't get hung up on the exact numbers. I think they are close, but we would need to do more research to get it exact. Also, in no way is this illustration being shared to compare motor manufacturers or make a statement about Yamato or Sidewinder. It's merely an illustration to show why people are concerned about parity and how rule changes could impact one of Stock's largest classes.

Why the concern over parity:
Let's say there are 110 drivers in 20ssH. I'd guess 25-30 of them run Y80s, 75-80 run 302/321, and 4-5 run SW20.

Scenario #1) Keep the heights as they are, and improve cooling.
IF we improve cooling, and the 321 is faster, you disadvantage the 25-30 Y80 drivers and the 4-5 SW20 drivers. You would then have a situation where you need to buy a new 321 or a $700 conversion kit to be competitive. Yes, the 321 is the new motor and should be promoted, but the concern is that if it is too fast, you will "tax" everyone $700 for conversion kit, or $XX to buy a new 321.

Scenario #2) Lower Yamato heights to improve cooling.
IF Yamato heights are lowered, there is probably minimal impact to those running complete 321s. You do, however, disadvantage the other Yamato owners, as you slow the Y80s and Y302s down. The result would be that you disadvantage 95% of the class that run Yamatos by essentially making the SW20s faster.

Obviously if Scenario #1 is enacted and 321s are not faster, then there is no concern. While not a pure apples to apples comparison, the 300ssH class has shown that the 321s are faster. This is true on closed course and 1/4 Mile records. We also have some data to suggest that the 321 is faster in 20ssH. I don't have test data for us personally comparing the two motors, but am very confident in the testing by Pater and others. I'll also state that Joe has no incentive to favor one motor over another one. He has each one in his trailer. I would also say that his tests were run with a very good motor, so it is a fair comparison.

So, please keep pushing for a good cooling solution. Tietze does amazing work, so anything external will be top notch. What we are asking is that the SORC considers the impact that any changes would have on parity. I don't know the right answer, and know it won't be easy, but please keep that in mind as we develop solutions to improve cooling.

- Mike

[Racerkyle20]

Scenerio #3 raise SW heights to 1/2 with everyone else . That would compliment Scenario #1

[GrandpaRacer]

Kyle, What height are you req'd to run now? I should know but don't have my 20 SW yet...

[Racerkyle20]

1 inch for SW in 20ssh. 1/2inch for SW in 25H.

[ryan_4z]

This issue of parts swapping is another point that must be addressed. This, as much as anything, is what we try to eliminate in the stock category. All this talk is about new racers, yet new racers almost invariably purchase used equipment. Now, a used 302 will not be competitive with a hybrid 302/321. So a new racer who purchases a used 302 will be soon to find out that they may need to spend another $400 to make their motor competitive. Is this the scenario we want to have? The rich get richer. The fact is, this is not about new racers. I suspect you all know that the 321 will be the dominant motor and you all want to be able to get the jump on this new edge. Unfortunately, there may be nothing we can do about this now....

Another thought on the water pickup: Perhaps nothing need be done regarding the 321. Maybe the answer is to allow this water pick-up as a prototype mod for all Yamatos. That way we can all see them run in races on all Yamato models. This will allow some time and more data to properly address this issue without turning our biggest classes on their heads. I think we all know that regardless of what test data shows, the real truth comes to light on the race course. This will give us answers as to what effect the water pick-up will have for all models and, for the first time, it would allow us all to see how the 321 runs compared to the other models. I imagine that our commissioners and members will feel better about moving forward once we have all seen a 321 race competitively with other models.

The situation right now is this: We have a plethora of options and limited information. The only logical way to procede is with caution. Personally, I get the impression that the push for the water pick-up is being made primarily by teams that have already purchased 321s. I may be wrong about this, but it makes me question the impartiality of the data presented. Joe's data, on the other hand, was acquired before anyone had a 321, and apparently convinced him to purchase one. Race results will not lie. Let me add, I am not questioning anyones integrity only suggesting that to the outside observer, this issue may seem more convoluted than it does to those who stand to benefit.

[stockc]

Full disclosure, I do not have a 321. In attempting to get to the bottom of the Pater testing, I'm still not certain but it seems there was only one direct 321/302 comparison done that showed a meager .7 mph difference? That small of difference could have been the result of many variables and if repeated the results reversed. Nobody runs 300 ssh in R10 so I have no direct observations to make conclusions. Perhaps the fasted 300ssh racers with 321's are simply coincidentally on the best and most prepared race teams, or it could very well perform better at those depths? I have no way to know. We are void of virtually any race data on the 321 at 3/4 or 1/2" I'd like all Yamato's to cool with the least amount of collateral damage possible, and IF changes are able to be made, its best to complete our due diligence and get it right the first time. Many of us are just fed up with the risk of cooking our motors is the motivation. If one enters racing thinking he/she will never have to upgrade equipment, that racing isn't going to be costly, I wouldn't know what to say to those types. Like the Adams, if everyone with a 321 starts spanking our 302's I'll be getting one also. Ken

[Ram4x4]

Neither do I have a 321 (I run a 102 in C) and as mentioned, full disclosure, I want a 321...but a sealed one for 300.

With that said, as for new racers invariably purchasing used equipment, this may be true, but before we drop that as a conclusion, examine why they are buying used equipment. Could it also be that at the time no new equipment is available? Part of this whole 321 thing is the fact it is new and it will be available, but it won't be if it burns up.

I don't think a new driver is going to "discover after the fact" that he needs a $400 upgrade to his used 302. Most likely, as most people do, he's going talk around a bit and get some opinions and suggestions and more than likely will come to understand he will want/need that $400 upgrade before he buys anything. Knowing that, he might even decide to forego the upgrade until later as he is just excited at getting a boat and getting on the water. There is a bit of a learning and experience curve to overcome before you start worrying about "being competitive." I drove a couple boats last year on single-event sign ups. Purchased my rig at the end of last year and drove it this year in C, 20 and 500mod. It wasn't until the middle/end of this year that I started looking at trying new props, tweaking needles and so forth. I wanted to learn to make good starts, get comfortable with driving in the pack, setting up my boat, and so on before I even thought about trying to go faster.

Since the powerhead of the 321 is essentially the same as the 302, putting it on a 302 tower will most likely make it perform more like a 302 (the exhaust size and shape has the most effect on the power curves). I realize the intake differences, but that hasn't shown to be much, if any effect on performance, other than the stated "I don't have to tweak the needle valve as much in changing conditions."

So, IF conversion is allowed, I don't see that as any sort of issue. Best case scenario, a 302/321 hybrid places it in the middle of the pack (assuming the claims the 321 is faster is true).

We have some very good information, prime among that is the 321, and to some extent the 302 is overheating. The main focus is the 321 as it is the new engine, but overall the Yamato line has apparently been victim of cooling for a long time. I can't, and won't try to speak for why that hasn't been addressed before the 321 showed up, but it is what it is.

I don't think anyone is looking to jump on an edge like you say. In fact, given some of the opposition to the ideas I'd consider just the opposite. I really do believe the focus here multi-fold. First, we really do want to present to the world, if you will, a legitimate program to bring new drivers into the sport (driver school). I also believe that to do that we have to also present these new drivers with new and available equipment. Yes, to some degree it is indeed an "image" thing. I'm not aware of any other motorsport where new equipment is not available. Doesn't mean the new guys have to buy new, but for those that do it has to be there.

Past that, then yes, we also have to integrate the new engine into the other classes where they also run. Our big discussion in here prior to the 321 cooling issue was how to grow the sport. Well, the bottom line is that if classes do not adopt the new engine, then they can not grow. There are only X number of Y80, 102s, 302s in existence. Someone selling off their 102 or 302 to a new guy means the seller is no longer driving that class, but the new guy is. The class maintains a certain status quo, but it does not grow. Maybe a seller has a couple engines and can still drive the class and it grows by that one new guy, but regardless, at some point it is saturated due to no new engine. The 321 needs to cool and it needs to be made available for the classes.

The plethora of options you mention have ranged from complete revamp of the legal depths for a couple classes to the so far cheapest and easiest fix...the pickup tube.

I do agree, parity needs to be considered. We can't, however see what that parity is until a cooling solution is decided on.

[ryan_4z]

Pardon my cynicism, but trailer box protection is all too often a factor in this type of situation. I do not doubt anyone's intentions or integrity.

[65R]

Mike, valid points, Grandpa racer (my father) and myself also believe in the old school way of thinking. We have worked very hard In order to get water. Our concerns are the new racers who may not have that same way of thinking.

[Lee Sutter]

Help! How did the controversial "parts swapping" the 321/302 get approved without any fanfare and cooling the 321 is meeting so much resistance?

[guedo499]

When testing for the CSH 1/4 straightaway records, I tested the 302 and the 321 head to head last February. From my notes, the 302 was 1.2 mph faster than the 321 confirmed over 4 runs (2 per motor).

I set the CSH 1/4 records with the 321 because I did test faster with the slower motor than the record was then, currently set at.

I'm not saying the 321 isn't going to be faster, but with my 321 which was relatively fresh and the 302 that is one of our good motors, the 302, when going max out in a straight line was clearly faster.

[GrandpaRacer]

Thank you John!! I knew this and was hoping you would tell us this important point. People have read into the fact that you set the record with a 321 that it was therefore the fastest in your trailer. It is nice to have such problems, huh !! What is interesting is all the guys out west think the 302 is faster than the 321 and it appears the east and midwest seem to think the 321 is faster by 1 mph. Top speed does not matter as much as time to get around the race course which include those pesky corners. In a typical race of 1 mile we probably spend 10 seconds at most per lap at top speed.
John Adams

[pav225]

Thanks Guedo. Good info.

[ZUL8TR]

I recall Harry Pinner telling me something like - It's not how fast you go around the race course it's who finishes 1st and legal.

[guedo499]

Someone asked me about pumping and how the motors did, so I'll share it here. Nope! No pumping at all for either motor when doing straightaway racing, even when at 3/4. If you cool the motor down before your kilo run (go off plane), you'll have just enough temp left in your motor to get on plane, make your run and get off plane - usually hits about 420-450 degrees. in the process.