Yamato Cooling Tests

[Brian10s]

Here is a solution - Prototype the water tube for all Yamato's for 2017. And the Prototype rule should be tweaked so that this set up can run at ANY and ALL races BUT is not eligible for any wins in a Divisional, National (winter or summer), High Point, Records or HOC.

This way there is real world data for the SORC for all races to make a decision for the 2018 racing year, yet your Championships, HOC and parity are not in play. Also, anyone who has a Yamato and can't pump at legal height will be able to do so. The Yamato pumping issue is not new (while the 321 is more extreme), so trying to make a fix for all pumping while not trashing the classes (availability of the 321 and the 321 conversions need to be in the conversation) needs to be the #1 goal. There are only a handful of 321 outside of the 300 class. So this would effect the smallest portion of the Yamato population, while still letting them get on the water and race.

[Matt Dagostino]

In reality there really is no 321...........the 302 and 321 parts are legally interchangeable in all classes outside 300ssh.

[GrandpaRacer]

Matt's observation is really thought provoking. What it really comes down to is that we have a tower that causes over heating. I predict someday it will be legal to cut out the problematic baffle( not in 300ss). I believe it causes over heating and increased back pressure and a shift in the hp curve. We can adjust for the changed power curve with prop selections. But over heating is just more difficult to solve. That problem has been with us with the 302 for many years to a lesser degree. Now we have to solve it with the 321. The external pick up is the only proven solution that allows a new motor to be used in 300ss and the other classes.

[Brian10s]

"The external pick up is the only proven solution that allows a new motor to be used in 300ss and the other classes."

Not to be a s**t, but primary goal is not for a sealed 300 series motor to be run in the other classes. A sealed 321 should be legal to run in the other classes but not competitively. It must run deep, where it pumps and cools the motor. Making changes to the C & 20 in order for a sealed 321 to run at legal heights is the tail waging the dog.

[adamallen]

Don't forget the other "proven" solution which is how the engine was/is designed. Lowering the propshaft depth, just sayin

[Big Don]

Which could lead to redesign of boats and changing of ones prop box. But then, so could adding a water pick up.

How are you finding time to be on HR? Shouldn't you be doing something way cooler?

[Brian10s]

Matt,
Yes there is no 321, except it is the 321 that doesn't cool.

This is even easier - those that want to run for Championship's, get a 302 tower and run it. Those that don't run for Championships or want to make sure their Yamato's are max cool, use the prototype water tube for 2017 and gather real racing data for the SORC to make a decision for 2018. Or both - run the water tube at local races and then take it off at the big ones.

This seems a very easy decision. Doesn't hurt anyone and still accomplishes every parties wishes in 2017 and gives the SORC data in order to make a sound decision moving forward.

So why did it take 400 posts over 3 threads to get here?

[Matt Dagostino]

[QUOTE=Brian10s;n451543]Matt,
Yes there is no 321, except it is the 321 that doesn't cool.

This is even easier - those that want to run for Championship's, get a 302 tower and run it. Those that don't run for Championships or want to make sure their Yamato's are max cool, use the prototype water tube for 2017 and gather real racing data for the SORC to make a decision for 2018. Or both - run the water tube at local races and then take it off at the big ones.



Not to be flip, but show this picture to a newer racer looking to enter the sport or move up and they will be like WTF?................ being able to purchase a new motor and compete is part of the mission statement of Stock Outboarding and having NEW engines to compete with is what we have worked hard on for years. You and i know where to go to get old 302 midsections and compete. But i am not worried about you or me. We will figure it out. It is the newer crowd i concern myself with and trying to make racing easier to help reduce barriers to STOCK OUTBOARD.

Brewster's memo on June 20th, 2016 was a RED flag that help was needed to deal with the 321 situation. Some of the greatest braintrust in boat racing (less me), have developed a simple and PROVEN solution to cooling Yamato's. The system is proven to cool like a water pump. Hum, a water pump in a outboard motor. Now there is a good idea. All the potential unknowns that the naysayers are focusing on are of course important but the priority per the SORC's June 20th memo to the membership is to develop a cooling solution ASAP.

Change is not easy............we shall see. I kinda believe that after 400 posts as you point out the answer is in there somewhere!!!!

[ryan_4z]

New motors are available in every other class in stock outboard and, hontestly, isn't CSH the last class we should be pushing new drivers toward? It has the highest level of competition in the category.

[Brian10s]

So basically, the last 40 yrs the SORC and all of Stock could have cared less about Yamato cooling (you and me included) and now it needs to be address immediately because . . . let me guess, there is a line of new blood racers around the block waiting to get in (and lets not forget all the new blood racers who have joined the Yamato ranks in the last whatever years and figured it out, with or without veteran help).

As for proven cooling system - I got one that has more real world testing and that's the nose cones. So let's not start that the tube is the only solution. The tube is one solution and since we are going to Modify our Stock Yamato's, let's put all the options on the table.

And be careful about "tinkering" as most of our "Stock" engines have more things done to them that their "Modified" brothers. And no new blood racers knows where to send his away to have all the tricks done to be competitive. So all this reducing barriers is BS with the exception of the Sidewinder & 300 Series. Every other engine gets something done if you want to be competitive.

And the new blood racer has always had this knowledge mountain to climb, with boats or any other sport - making the cooling tube legal in 17 or a Prototype is not going to make it any smaller or easier.

[Matt Dagostino]

Brian...............this is not doing something 'immediately'............the problem has been on the table for close to a year and please read the SORC letter of June 20th. Our group chose to be pro-active in lieu of any real action being taken by the SORC. Now we get bashed for providing a turn key solution. All part of the process i guess.

[ryan_4z]

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily against this. It is totally in the spirit of basically all allowed modifications. That being the repairing (in this case preventing) of damaged internal parts. It is important to move slowly, though, mostly because test data and race results are often very different. Wouldn't it be a shame if, for some strange reason, this new apparatus failed in rough race conditions? I don't expect that, but, you never know. A prototype period makes perfect sense.

[Brian10s]

And I agree. I'm not against it either. But the last thing I want to see is the 321 with the cooling tube becoming the hot set up and running away with Nationals and HOC all because the SORC jumped before they had answers. The few 321's that run outside of the 300 class and the fewer still that could be acquired if this becomes the must have in C & 20, dictate that we should make sure we know what we are getting into.

So being available to use but Prototyped and not eligible for Championships or HOC, protects everyone, including the 300 series.

[Big Don]

Brian, I really don't see anyone doing what you suggest. Might be very beneficial to do that, but at the end of the day, not many are willing to just race with no points, etc.

[GrandpaRacer]

I don't know why we are bothering with this whole effort all the smart guys seem to have better ideas. I think we should just bag this effort and let them solve it..

[65R]

Grandparacer, I agree, seriously stop wasting your time, let someone else figure it out, this is just going to give you a headache. This proposal has absolutely no affect on our racing program anyways.

[ryan_4z]

Is lively debate not part of the problem solving process? This is important work y'all are doing. I just think that some of us feel the work is not done until we see it on the race course. I think we all want the same thing here, only maybe what seems simple to some seems convoluted to others. All a matter of perspective. Let us also not forget, the 321 will not likely be the only motor effected by whatever is done here. This course of action could effect 102/302 parity as well. We will not know until we see them race. Let us also not forget that this is a kind of unprecedented situation to address in such a manner and that fact alone calls for regulated action.

[Matt Dagostino]

4-z.......................that is why we set up the competition committee a few years back which is now the entire SORC. If things go sideways in any classes of Stock Outboard a system is in place to react quickly and make 'parity adjustments' Just sayin. After watching the engines compete in 2017 'cooled' the SORC can observe and then react if necessary at ANY POINT during the season.

[Big Don]

If we are really concerned with the 321 being the hot set up (pun intended)... teams doing the testing, if you find that is the case, please testing what happens if we made the 321 run lower than the 302. Does that help the parity issue. I feel no matter what the 80's are not going to be in the hunt, but they really aren't now either. We just need to make sure we don't lose those guys altogether. Unless of course we say something like you can run with a tube at XX height and without at YY height.

[daveracerdsh]

I sure do not have a dog in the fight so to speak....Tohatsu D motors have a water pump and the only way to ever heat them, aside from clogging the are with debris is to leave the key way out..which I have done. Remember, stock outboard is supposed to be an "inexpensive" way to get into boat racing....but when I see some of my friends not able to race heat 2 on Saturday or have to scratch on Sunday because they stuck their 302 etc it really bothers me...not only do some racers on a limited budget not have the funds to possibly have motor gone thru, it costs the club money in entry fees. What do we tell new racers that want to get into the sport? You can buy a 321, but be aware, you stand a real chance of sticking the thing and it will cost you x amount of dollars to get it fixed. If I was looking at getting into c stock or 20 or something I would walk away and buy an air cooled go cart or something....this is a no brainier in my view. If somebody else on thread has said essentially the same thing sorry I didn't see it. Daveracer. (Aka 13US)

[ryan_4z]

Tell them that a BSH is way more drivable than a CSH and easier on the back and joints carrying 30 less lbs. in and out of the trailer. You'll save the other $2000 down the line when your body holds up better.

[stockc]

Ryan, I truly appreciate your ability to think outside the box. But considering we're in the good ole US of A, are there enough retired jockeys to be diverted to this class? (-: cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseburger coke..

[ryan_4z]

Ha! Good point, I guess 240 is the new 180, huh? Although, you'll be closer to weight in 20 with a 20S.

[ryan_4z]

And here's another thing: Have we all forgotten Pearl Harbor?!

[csh-2z]

What do the Germans have to do with this?

[csh-2z]

In my opinion the 321 should be made probationary in 2017. Had the commission been aware of this issue, it would, no doubt, have been probationary last season.
Matt, as I've stated before, the competition committee can not base decisions on one or two performances, it needs a reasonable body of work to make educated decisions, otherwise you guys would lynch us. Do you want us to make a significant change mid-season based on Joe Pater's performance during the first few races? What if he is dominating but many of the remaining 321's are very competitive? When people start complaining about his dominance we'll just drop the 321's down 1/2" just before the nationals. Is that the kind of result you're looking for? You are sitting here complaining on the internet, while Joe is out there finding a way (if he hasn't already) to make his 321 pump without a water pick up at the desired height. Also, Should he be punished for working harder than you to solve this problem? I assure you, I would find a way to make a 321 pump, just like I found a way to make my 302 pump nearly 20 years ago at 1/2" below, and I wasn't the only one.
For those on the west coast that are steaming there 302's. DROP & REPROP. I'd rather give up a 1/4mph on top end than not finish. You can't win if you don't finish. And the worst part is you guys know what your doing, making the choice to take the risk, then blaming the SORC.

I would rather drop all the Yamato's down to 1" below the bottom, so they all pump at max height (that's what the goal is, right?) then screw up our biggest classes doing something without the the requisite data to support my argument.

[pav225]

John,
What would you suggest for Y80s and SW20s that don't have issues with pumping?
- Mike

[stockc]

Just checking.. are you the same individual that provided these answers to questions that I previously asked when you were running for office?

User Profile - HydroRacer.Net Forums
hydroracer.net
Just to remind everybody of a procedural truth about how this would be handled by the SORC if it is even proposed. Because it is class specific any proposed rule of ...

csh-2z
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 192
#49
Re: APBA Board of Directors
08-23-2016, 01:59 PM
I would be all for an external pick-up. It has been discussed before in SORC meetings but I don't recall what the downside was. I had one on my Mod 12 years ago, of course in Mod there is no transom height regulations. I ran 1/2" above the bottom and picked up some significant speed, just needed a bigger skeg for control.
csh-2z
csh-2z
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 192
#52
Re: APBA Board of Directors
08-23-2016, 03:58 PM
I wouldn't change any height rules, just because we allow an external water pick-up. And it should apply to all of the Yamato motors.

[Ram4x4]

Then why even have minimum depths at all? Just set'em as high as you can cool them and have at it?

[csh-2z]

Yes, that is me. After discussing the issue with many well respected (in my opinion) long time boat racers I came to the conclusion that I was not, at the time, considering all of the potential ramifications of such a decision. I think it would be irresponsible to maintain a position without learning more about the 321 test results. After weighing the pros and cons, I've decided to err on the side of disappointing a relatively small group for 1 year than to risk the balance we currently have in 4 of our larger classes that represent almost, if not more than, 1/2 of our membership. I am not afraid to change my mind when presented with information I had not previously considered. If that makes me unworthy then, so be it. The SORC members are elected every year for a one year term and my BOD position is a two year term. If I am replaced at the end of my term, I will have a clear conscience that I have always acted (in my opinion) in the best interest of the sport and APBA. I'm not going to apologize for becoming more informed or open minded.

[stockc]

I wasn't soliciting an apology. But do think a apparent about face in viewpoint is worthy of questioning. I get that you're in a tough spot. Ken

[csh-2z]

Ken, Sorry, I tend to get defensive at times in my writing. This is a very delicate situation, and it is important to get it right. I want to cool these motors as much as anybody, but there may have to be compromises in transom heights to maintain parity as best we can.

[dholt]

I got a feeling the SORC will be discussing this Yamato issue for an entire day.
How, pray tell, would you determine exactly what a 321 engine is? It's essentially the same engine as a 302. The major, discernible difference is the tower housing. Other parts are legal replacements for the 302. So, if a 302 powerhead had a 321 carb, reeds, manifold, exhaust cover, magneto and head...would it still be a 302? Or is it now a 321? Or what if a 302 powerhead was on a 321 tower?
You boys are in for a real quagmire sorting this out in LA.

[Shane_B]

Good question... 302 and 321 powerheads are identical with exception of intake manifold/baffled cowling hence the SORC approval (from what I understand) that 302 and 321 parts may be interchanged - however, is there a performance improvement if one just puts the 321 manifold intake assembly, cowling, carb funnel, and air jet in a 302 (and leave out the 321 tower - a quasi-321)? Or is the 321 baffled cowling only efficient with 321 (baffled) tower? Probably needs to be tested and data addressed later as part of parity issues but cooling needs to be addressed ASAP.

[Matt Dagostino]

[QUOTE=csh-2z;n451572] You are sitting here complaining on the internet, while Joe is out there finding a way (if he hasn't already) to make his 321 pump without a water pick up at the desired height.


Johnny..............FYI, Charlie Pater and i had a nice conversation last weekend as he and brother Joe have a Tietze Prototype kit and are testing with it. Also my daughter and i are doing fall and winter testing with the team to provide the necessary data to help you make an informed decision and not just chatting on Hydroracer. Think 'cool'.

[csh-2z]

Matt, I know and appreciate all the effort you all are putting into this issue. I would like to solve the cooling issue as much as you do. I'm just hesitant to go forward with the pick up tube until we have enough information to make a good decision. We are too fragile to make any significant mistakes. We need to proceed with caution. 'cool', I got it!

[Matt Dagostino]

Well, we hope to have enough info to you and the SORC before x-mas to help you make those decisions. We all know change is not easy and all the open discussions will hopefully lead to a decision that will work. Rain and crappy here. Hoping to get back to Sharptown this weekend to do final testing with the 20ssh.............Matt and Val

[pav225]

John,
What are your thoughts on lowering Y80s or Sidewinder in 20ssH? They don't have issues cooling.
- Mike

[ryan_4z]

Get the 25 c.i. motors out of 20 and let us real 20s duke it out!

[Big Don]

By lowering you mean, let me take my 80 to 1/4 inch?

[Matt Dagostino]

Johnny...............to many the most important aspect of the discussion is 'cooling' the newest 321 Yamato motor which is what started this whole whirlwind.....of course parity issues have to come in the discussion but making the new product functional in our largest classes is Job 1 to many!