Tweet
I think that was already tried? I think a second hole was also drilled (like the Y80 has) and it too didn't work.
-
Dane Lance
700-P
CSH/500Mod -
In addition to the issue of parity there are other factors to be considered when authorizing pick up tubes. They include boat design and setup. The boat builders are smarter about this than me but based on my brother’s testing, I believe three items will be significantly changed by authorizing pick up tubes. Tuck will be increased, gear cases will be relocated closer to the aft of the boat bottom, and boat aerodynamic lift will be increased. All three will most likely make the boats go faster AND make the boats more unstable and more difficult to drive. These changes would significantly affect safety.
I am aware that boat builders are already waiting for the outcome of these issues at the annual meeting; if changes are made to Yamato cooling, changes to boat design will be made to take advantage of those rule changes. Any rule changed will give an advantage to racers that do significant amounts of testing and disadvantage new racers and racers that do limited testing.
That being said, I believe there is a cooling alternative. We believe the increased pressure caused by the baffling in the 321 makes cooling more difficult. There is a cooling water outlet in the powerhead that vents cooling water into the tower. Increased tower pressure from the 321 exhaust backs up through this outlet into the powerhead cooling water jacket. Blocking this hole with high temp RTV reduces the pressure in the powerhead cooling water jacket making it easier for the propeller to pump cooling water. We have done limited testing of reducing the pressure in the tower housing of the 321 and believe the motor can be cooled by blocking the water hole in the powerhead that sprays water into the down housing. Our results indicate good cooling with no other modifications. This same procedure works on the all Yamato’s. Don'’t take our word for it, test it yourself and post the results.
I still believe we currently have the best of all worlds by leaving the rules as they are per my post of December 2, 2016 in this forum. The other alternatives discussed, I believe, will cause more problems in the 20ssh class than any benefits that may be gained.Last edited by Charlie Pater; 12-14-2016, 10:56 AM.Comment
-
Charlie, you are absolutely correct that those things will be done and are already in the design stage at some boat builders shops. This is why some are wondering and asking if the SORC will put a tuck rule in, will they put an engine set back rule in, etc."Ask anyone, I have no friends. I do have some people that put up with me and mostly because they like the rest of my family"
Don AllenComment
-
I suspect I'm one of the few that are already running this extreme setup - massive tuck, withing 1" of the back of the boat and can pump water. If a set-back rule needs to be added to allow an external pickup, its a price I'm more than willing to pay.
In respect to tuck, if your transom is built in the 17/19 degree range, the max tuck you can run is about 7/8-1" unless you alter the tower or transom itself - thought this was interesting when I was playing around.
-
-
Originally posted by Charlie Pater View Post
Dry-stacking the motor; tried that at Black Lake, Olympia - doesn't work. I did block the outlet and while warming-up the engine for, the tower could not even be touched, never-mind the still-present-cooling-issues on the course. The Yamatos need the stream of water to cool the tuner. Looks like you need to retest your "findings".
Comment
-
And Charlie, the worst part about your post is not the total BS about the dry-stacking, what is worse is that your comments that were relevant are now deemed irrelevant.
I understand you want to make boat racing better for all, as we all do, and we all have different opinions, but honesty about findings are a must when discussing these topics.
Give me a call when you have a minute, John.
-
John,
I appreciate your concern for Yamato cooling, but let's be honest. Your push for lowering Yamatos is to make them slower in 20ssH and the SW20 comparatively faster. This is great for the 3-5 racers with SW20s in 20ssH, but not in the best interest of the other 105 (97%)drivers.
Let's try to think of the overall good of the class. If you lower Yamatos do you support lowering the SW20 as well?
I know you have been pushing for speeding up the SW20 in 20ssH, as you told me that directly. Many would argue they are already fast and still early in the development curve, whereas Yamatos are close to being maxed out.
Hopefully you can fairly represent the entire class in LA.
Nothing personal, just calling BS as I see it.Comment
-
pav225 for President..................wow, talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight.
))))) Also who is this old timer Tom Cronk. Doesn't he race Alky's...
-
Mike, I was just being a thorn in the side, pointing out that there is more than 1 solution to the problem. I'm not concerned with the limitations of the Sidewinder in this class, if I decide to make 20SSH a priority in my program, you will notice.
Tom, hope you are well old man. I prefer to look at the structure of our classes prioritizing in cu.in. displacement as opposed to manufacturer. 20 cu.in. class-20 cu.in. motors.
Matt, Mind your own business! -
Johnny.............tis the season..........stay 'cool' my friend.
-
-
They just ran 300ss at Brawley for 2 days of racing.The weather was in the seventies but the water was cold.No one that I know of had any overheating problems.Do you think the humidity or the water temperature might play a big part in this overheating problem? Just a thought I haven't been following This Thread very closely.I realize if it is one of those two things it's still a problem you can't change the weather.So maybe my $0.02 is not worth Jack squiddly.The bottom line is no one had an overheating problem.Comment
-
Charlie:
Ricky Montoya and I once discussed this exact thing. He told me that plugging the water dump tube was a guaranteed way to melt the exact horn in the tower. Being he was at that time importing lots of Yamatos, I would tend to trust him.
Joe
Originally posted by Charlie Pater View PostComment
-
It sounds that we have different information about closing up the tuner cooling hole as a method to cool the powerhead. We are going to do more testing, weather permitting, this weekend and may schedule a trip down south for additional testing. At this point we are not advocating this method to cool the Yamatos, only pointing it out as a possible option that needs more testing.
The point about the whole discussion in this forum is that if a change is made to the method of cooling, parity and drivability need to be addressed. Currently we have excellent parity and drivability and those items need to be preserved.
Comment
-
Actually, the whole point is to find a cooling solution for the 321 specifically, and Yamatos in general. Yes, parity and drivability need to be addressed, but those are two different subjects that we can't address until we can cool the engine reliably (and "reliably" is the key word there).
Some have suggested just dropping the height of the 321 until it cools because the rules don't require you to run at max height. How competitive is THAT going to be? If you say perfectly so, it'll just take a different set up, then why do we have everyone trying to run at lower depths if it doesn't matter? The logic doesn't follow.Dane Lance
700-P
CSH/500ModComment
-
John,
Thank you for bringing up the second item on my list of personal agendas that need to be called out: “Class Structure by Cubic Inches”. Again, let’s be open and honest. This is someone's personal agenda to remove Yamato engines from 20ssH. Why else would someone propose such an unhealthy idea, unless it was for their own personal agenda?
If we are going to help the sport get healthy, we need more transparency, especially by the folks who have been elected to represent the drivers. And we need to quit pursuing these personal interests at the expense of the entire organization.
While it should be common sense that we need to protect our 2nd largest class, and NOT remove the motor that has made it so popular, I will bring up some points to consider:
1) Same cubic inches does not always equate to same horsepower or performance. Simply look at 300ssH (302 vs 321) to see how the same powerhead, with EXACTLY the same cubic inches, can produce very different speeds on the race course. Also, in all applications, different engine designs can produce much different performance with the same cubic inches.
2) We constantly say that we need to deliver more value to drivers. Buying a $20 restrictor plate to add a second class is by far the best value we can offer drivers. In the case of CSH and 20ssH, you can run the same boat, motor, and props in order to race two classes. How can anyone in racing, or on the SORC, support a plan to move away from this value proposition?
3) In 30+ years of racing, I've never heard anyone say "I want to race a 15 cubic inch class". Instead they say, "I'd like to go about 65 mph, and I weigh 180 pounds...". The cubic inch argument is irrelevant.
4) No spectators on shore have any idea what size motor is being raced. Nor do they care. They look for speed and competitive racing. Many of us racers don't even know the exact cubic inches of the motors we race. Why? Because it really doesn't matter.
5) The current "B" class was originally a 15 cubic inch motor. When it was discovered that a restricted 20 cubic inch motor was a better option, the class switched cubic inches to 20 from 15. Did anyone leave the class because it was now 20 cubic inches instead of 15?? Maybe if they had to buy a new motor, but NOT because it was now a restricted 20 cubic inch motor going the same speed on the same boat.
6) While not a Stock class, the Merc 15 motor with a restrictor is another excellent example of providing very good value for a family to have 1 kid race J and 1 race AX. Or a kid could start in J (with a $20 restrictor) and grow into AX by using the same motor minus the restrictor.
7) Yamato 80s and 302s have enjoyed excellent parity with different cubic inches. Over the last 10 years, it's been split between which motor has won the Nationals. This year 1st place was a 302, 2nd place was an 80. Excellent parity with different cubic inches.
Let's start spending more time talking about how to help grow the sport. Some could argue that condensing the number of classes will help, and hence the need to look at class restructuring. There may be some merit to that, but NOT by screwing up our second largest class. Also, local clubs have the option to limit the number of classes they run at local races in order to have a shorter racing day. This doesn't need to be mandated by the SORC.
Matt, not bringing a gun to a knife fight, just bringing to light more agendas that are being brought up that don't have the best interest of the organization in mind.
Does anyone have a copy of the proposal they can share?
- MikeComment
-
I've got an idea! Why don't we let every motor run in every class and then everyone can race as much as they want! We just need a bunch of different $20 restrictor plates. While we're at it let's get some participation trophies and we can all sit down and sing kumbaya. -
Now, for a point by point contention of your ridiculous comments:
First, no one has suggested removing Yamatos from 20ssH. Re-classing by cubic inch does not benefit any particular group of owners or manufacturers. In fact, it would require Sidewinder owners to give up our current B class and race always with Yamato 80s. This is a less than ideal proposition considering we have our own class right now. Yamatos make trash of the race course. Racing a pure Sidewinder class is more fun and leads to more competitive racing in the middle of the pack where water is still drivable versus in Yamato classes where 6th place means survival first, and racing second.
1) Agreed, same cubic inch motors would still need parity adjustments.
2) This is not a universally agreed upon idea. I believe we need to increase our value to advertisers. Duplicate classes cheapen racing as a whole. More seat time can be offered by increasing laps or heats while reducing the number of classes and making our sport more easily understood by the general public.
3) In 20+ years of racing no one has ever asked me 'What class motor do you put on that?' I invariable get the question on the way to every race, 'What size motor do you put on that?' 'Twenty cubic inches,' is my response.
4) I won't speak for the spectators. I will say, racers who don't know what size engine they run should get their sh!t together, because that is ridiculous.
5) The 20 c.i. motor is not the same speed. Maybe parity would would have been more achievable with the SW 15S?
6) No argument here. This is the only place I feel restrictors are good for the sport.
7) Parity is not defined by who wins the nationals. It is defined by how different powerplants perform generally on different race courses and throughout the pack. Just because a couple of fast guys can still compete with their Yamato 80s does not mean there is good parity.
We all want to grow the sport, Mike. We Sidewinder owners/racers have as much to lose as anyone regardless what path we take. As it is right now, we may as well be running CSH twice a day because that is what the reality of the 20 class is. -
I would like to add: Usually I let my father stand for himself. His big mouth gets him into these situations and usually gets him out. I have to say, though, that his support for Sidewinder is based entirely in his support of this sport. He supports the Sidewinder project politically and on the racecourse because he believes that it is in the best interest of the sport to support the only manufacturer of racing outboards in the United States. The only outboard manufacturer that produces motors specifically for Stock Outboard racing. Neither of us have any vendetta or negative feelings toward Yamato. We raced Yamatos for 15 years and if it were up to me we would still own our good 302. We sold off our Yamatos because it was the only way we could support a Sidewinder racing program. Yamato racing engines have a well earned reputation in this sport and deservedly so. The fact is, that the longevity of this sport dictates that we should no be reliant on a single manufacturer. Why Yamato owners seem to have an axe to grind with Sidewinder I cannot deduce. I see no threat to Yamatos place in Stock Outboard. I see only room for all to grow. I think my father shares this vision as well.
-
-
Its concerning to me that we consistently state that we need to provide more value to our racers and to take actions to get them more races/laps per day, and yet our actions don't support this.
Ryan, I didn't push to add motors to other classes, and if you didn't have a restrictor plate, your B class would not have existed this year.Last edited by pav225; 12-16-2016, 05:33 AM.Comment
-
Mike,
You know, it's funny, I said the same thing about you the other day. I said, 'Dad, all he wants to do is protect his class and keep it the way it is.' I think now that I was wrong. I believe that we all have the best interest of the sport at heart, only we have different ideas about how to move this sport into the future.
The fact is, there are two fundamentally different ideologies at work. Your way of thinking probably represents the majority of racers today. It is the same formula that led to growth in the 50s and 60s. That formula is: have equipment readily available and at an affordable cost and racers will come. This, certainly, is part of the solution. The problem is that this formula continues to put the financial burden of the organization on the backs of the racers. This is not a sustainable approach, as is plainly shown by our current participation. This ideology has been the status quo for around thirty years now. In those three decades there has been nothing to show that this formula is working. Our sport continues to struggle. Our numbers are stagnant.
The new ideology is that if we make the sport marketable to spectators and advertisers then we can bring in much greater amounts of money and relieve the burden on the individual racer. At the core of this ideology is the idea that we must a concise and marketable race program. A clearly defined class structure is necessary to make this happen and to market the sport as a whole. You say that the spectators don't care what class is what. I disagree. This may be true of the spectator who shows up to see one day of racing. What about the spectator who follows the sport? There may not be any of those right now, but that is because we keep limiting ourselves by not looking at the bigger picture. The truth is, you cannot sell something if you don't know what it is. Without definition in our class structure we have no definition of our sport. What makes a 'C' motor a 'C' motor? What makes a 20 motor a 20 motor? This lack of definition is why the introduction of new equipment is always a fiasco.
Furthermore, this is not a fix that can be make locally. In order to take the burden off of the racers and the clubs our sport needs national sponsorship. We need a main event program that can be duplicated at venues around the country. Only then will our sport be marketable to major advertisers. Until we make these changes the financial burden of the sport will continue to be placed on the drivers and clubs.
Bringing in new drivers is not the way to save our sport. Bringing in money is. The drivers will follow, but the fact is we don't need more racers if we have more money.Ryan Runne
9-H
Wacusee Speedboats
ryan.runne.4@gmail.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"--Albert Einstein
These days, I find it easier to look up to my youngers than my elders.Comment
-
Ryan,
In your plan, what motor would be used in 20ssH?
- MikeComment
-
Another thought: This idea of added value by racing another class is kind of an illusion. Sure, a racer can get more laps, but the realities of restrictor plate racing are these:
-In order to be competitive you must still test for two classes.
-You can use the same prop, but not if you want to win. If you have a fast C wheel, you will have trouble pulling that wheel with a restrictor plate.
-Tuning with a restrictor plate is more difficult and even veteran racers have difficulty with this sometimes. -
And let us not forget that the biggest barrier to success in this sport is the inherent learning curve. The difficulty of learning how to manage a hydroplane in race conditions should not be understated because there is very little in the real world that translates to this ability. It must be learned behind the wheel. Compound that with the difficulty of the clock start. Nothing we do class by class will ease this learning curve. -
I quit running 20ssh with my 102 and a restrictor. Maybe if I get a different, smaller prop that the motor can actually turn, then maybe, but then there's the whole tweaking the engine for restrictor then tweaking it back for CSH, meh.
To be fair, I knew I wouldn't be competitive and just wanted seat time, but after nearly getting lapped every time I just started running the boat in 500mod. No tweaks or changes needed (and I've managed to pull some 2nd and 3rd place finishes). More seat time and at least semi-competitive locally (i.e. more fun that just going for a boat ride in the back).
I understand 302's with restrictors are doing well in the class when set up properly, so the idea of restrictors isn't a bad one.
-
-
Just so I'm clear....the "plan" to help Stock Outboard is to remove 70% of the drivers from our 2nd largest class? Because, although there is good parity between the motors, they can't race together because they are different cubic inches?Comment
-
Ryan,
Explain to me how that would help Stock as a whole.
As far as "my class", we race JH, JR, AXH, AXR, 20ssH, CSH, 300ssH, and possibly DSH in the future.
It's nice that your argument has resulting to trying to sling mud. I assumed you would say I am "protecting my trailer box", but instead you said my class.
If I am accused of trying to protect our 2nd largest class, I'm 100% guilty!!
If you can explain how forcing 70% of the drivers of our 2ND largest class to have to buy new motor, boats and props to race a class they are already racing, is going to help racing, I'm open to hear it.
I have not said anything negative about motor manufacturers and I do believe we need to support them, but by forcing new motors on everyone, it's very likely that many will walk away.
This agenda does not have the best interest of Stock Outboard in mind.Comment
Comment