321 heating issues

[ottawamercguy]

I tested a 302 that I had a CSR heating issue with that now has the water inlet drilled out and it ran
at 308 F at zero ht (3/4") and 3/16" in on an Austin. My 321 also drilled out ran at 338 F but steam
was reported on the course. If it were up to me I would change the ht the 1" and I believe all the
heating issues would go away. More testing for temps at Crystal Lake on Friday.

[GrandpaRacer]

I recently acquired a 302 and while disassembling it for a ring job I found a new to me heating issue. The power head where the water enters from the tower had a brass plug in it with about a 1/8 inch hole. This was the first time I have seen that and it sure would have limited cooling flow on this power head had I not discovered it before running it. So, when you have the power head off, check to see if there is a plug in there! If so take it out.
John Adams

[jsilvestri]

If we truly want to cool the motors, which I've never had an issue with once I studied the 302 cooling system and changed the discharge tubes to accommodate, then allow the cool tool and drilling of the tower in any way to allow the motors to cool. As an inspector, measuring set-back is not an issue. Tuck, IS a pain so IF necessary make a set-back rule but leave tuck out of it. This issue really isn't that complex, STOP worrying about a problem that may never arise! Make racing accessible, easy and fun and more people will race! The rules in the stock division are out of hand! There will never be true parity unless every class becomes a sealed class in a one design boat. Do we really want that?

[Matt Dagostino]

Joe.............keep in mind the focus here is the 321 tower and not the 302. I own a 321 and it will not cool. I run a 302 tower and it cools but not well at max height!

[Dennis Crews]

Joe, would you mind sharing how you changed the discharge tubes to accommodate the 302 cooling system?

[Bob Rusnak]

Just very confused. I don't run the Yamato's but did have a 202 years and we did run it many times and never had a cooling problem. Being "stock" outboard why should any engine need to be modified? Should be run as received from the factory and used as designed. Once altered, it now becomes a modified engine.

[Ericwienczak]

I dont think shaved lower units and milled heads fall under the stock category..

[Brian10s]

How about this - since both methods are "Modifying" the motor out of "Stock" configuration, why not quit screwing around and just allow a nose cone with a low water pickup. The 350 & 500 guys have been using this for years, it is proven to cool engines at almost any height. And it provides an additional benefit that the motor drives better than with the stock club foot.

I have only had issues cooling near 1/2 with both 102 & 302. Never have even worried about it at 3/4. I understand the 321 tower requires additional cooling challenges, so why go for half measures.

Either run these engines as "Stock" or since we are already "Modifying" them to suit our needs, fix the issue once and for all, get the additional benefits and a proven solution with over 20 yrs of real world racing.

[Big Don]

Just a comment about making a stock engine into a "modified"... we already allow every class to modified their engines. There is nothing stock about any class. I've spent $1000.00's making sure they are.

[Matt Dagostino]

The stock Yamato ship sailed in the mid 1970's when the Yamato 80 came into play and the first thing the SORC did was allow the foot to be hacked up. They said it was a 'safety' issue. Ugh.

[GrandpaRacer]

We may more properly call the Stock classes Spec classes. The Stock horse was out of the barn long ago.

[Brian10s]

So if the "Modifying" part is not an issue, what is? The cost difference between a nose cone and the cool tool? Really?!?!? The amount of cash spent on getting your motor "right" and props and that is where we are going to get cheap??

My point is if the SORC is going to do this (And I really don't think it is needed but understand I am in the minority), then put all options on the table and pick the best one for the long term solution. Solve the problem completely - to the point that we never have to hear another cooling issue again.

Or how about allowing all 3 - the cool tool for those on a budget, reaming out the hole for those who like files and reams and nose cone/ boat pickup for those that want to do that way. If cooling is the only issue, open up all three options and let the drivers decide which is best for them. Once the decision is made to get more water to the engine, why do we care how it is done or how much cooling is legal?

[Ram4x4]

So, are 302s also overheating or not? I recall last year when we were going round and round on all this that certain people were adamant only the 321 was having cooling issues.

Let's examine the facts we do have:

1. 321 absolutely has cooling issues in classes other than 300ssh. Even in 300ssh, data indicates the 321 is running hotter by approximately 20-30 degrees.
2. 302s, and other Yamatos may have cooling issues.
3. Yamatos are the only engines with passive cooling.
4. The approved cooling enhancement method (drilling the pee hole) is not working.

Proposed/possible solutions:

1. Drill out pee hole.
2. Change/machine the area in and around the pee hole.
3. Cut, or otherwise alter the baffle design in the tower.
4. Lower the heights for CSH and 20SSH.
5. Allow some other method of cooling (pick up tube, or nose cone/low water pickup).

Concerns about cooling and potential changes:

1. Pick up tube will lead to safety issues due to radical boat designs, setback, and tuck.
2. Pick up tube or nose cone is not "stock."
3. Height changes will disrupt established set ups, leading to costly "prop chasing."
4. New drivers will become discouraged if engines continue to overheat.

Does that about sum up where we are in all of this?

I think the question of Yamato cooling in general needs addressed first, not just concerning the 321. We seem to have two basic camps here: only the 321 has cooling issues, and all Yamatos have cooling issues.

The known facts support the idea that Yamatos have cooling issues relative to all other engines (since they are the only ones with passive cooling). The question is, are there enough instances of cooked 80s, 102s, and 302s to warrant their inclusion in an overall solution? Does it really even matter?

Secondly, proposed solutions need consideration. We already know drilling the pee hole to .310 isn't effective enough. So, do we continue down the path of altering the pee hole, or some other machining/drilling operation, or do we, as Brian says, fix it once and for all?

As for the concerns over various proposed solutions, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

1. Does adding a pick up tube or nose cone realistically create a non-stock class? I would only ask how "stock" is CSH or 20ssh currently without them?

2. Changing the rules to lower heights is certainly the cheapest solution in terms of price, but there will be a cost to racers in terms of new props to work well at the new height. Do we want to do that?

3. New drivers (and even veterans) will certainly become discouraged if engines continue to burn up. Do we want that?

4. Lastly, the idea a pick up tube might entice someone to create some radical new hull design with crazy tuck settings sounds more like a big brother conspiracy theory to me than anything else. Every other engine brand has active cooling, so where are the crazy hulls and radical tuck in those classes? What about MOD? They have a fair amount less restrictions on their set ups, so are they crashing a lot more than the stock classes due to crazy or radical designs and settings?

It seems any solution is going to have some price or cost factor, it's inevitable, so what's the cheapest and easiest solution to implement? Clearly it's the pick up tube. Still, what is the issue here? Getting enough water at sufficient pressure to the engine to keep it from burning up.

I'm with Brian. Just let folks get water to their engine however they want to, even if it means doing nothing. One thing is for sure, under that scenario someone will land on the "best" solution and everyone will be doing it before you know it. Kinda like the old question "Where is the best place to put sidewalks?" Answer: "Wait and see where paths get worn in the grass."

[GrandpaRacer]

The issue we really need to consider is the fact the half of the field that rarely wins are still needed to support the whole organization. They are the ones that drop away for a number of reasons but one is clearly the cost and frustrations. Why not solve the cooling issue for these folks to help retain them? The fast guys tolerance for frustrations on cooling is much higher and they will deal with it, but we need every one to enjoy the racing part and to minimize the frustration part of racing. Just let them cool and let's go race.

[deeougee]

I'm with Brian on this one. Wish we had gone to the pro foot or nose cone a long time ago. For me the issue is driveability, not cooling. You kill two birds with one stone. You get a safer ride and cooling.

[pav225]

If there is a cooling problem with Yamatos, Keep it Simple....Cool Tool or drill out the tower. Let people do what they are comfortable with to cool their motors. It shouldn't be this complicated.

[Brian10s]

How is drilling the tower and less complicated than a nose cone on the gearfoot? And how is the Cool tool more of a proven solution than the nose cone?

[DeanFHobart]

If there is a cooling problem with Yamatos, Keep it Simple....Cool Tool or drill out the tower. Let people do what they are comfortable with to cool their motors. It shouldn't be this complicated.

Exactly.... With respect to the SORC.... Please be paying attention to this and please fix the problem.

[pav225]

A nose cone would be great. But realistically it would not be approved for Stock.
Need something simple and workable. Drill and/or Cool Tool seem to fit the bill.
Also, don't have dimensions on the drilled hole(s)...more unecessary restrictions and we shouldn't throw someone out for cooling their motor.

[Brian10s]

I understand what you are saying and do not disagree but ask WHY? Why wouldn't or shouldn't the SORC look at all options. Once the decision is made to cool the engine, then all options MUST be put on the table. The SORC needs to vote to either cool the engines or leave it all alone. After that, leave it up to the drivers what options is better for them. I'm only talking outside of the powerhead - only enlarged pickup holes, Cool Tool or Nosecone (which you can buy and install with some epoxy - not rocket science stuff). Nothing that makes inspection any more difficult.

[guedo499]

If a driver wants to use the Cool Tool, it will slow them down. Will it ultimately speed them up because of the ability to raise the engine to the minimum height? Sure, but that's kind-of the point.

A nose-cone will speed up the boat immediately.

I bought a pair of reamers off of McMaster Carr and can do a pick-up hole with chamfering in about 2 minutes. I've done this free of cost to anyone that has asked and have done well over a dozen right in the pits.

If you want to risk over heating (which you just might, and I have) with the current, new rule set, go ahead. If you want to ensure cooling and lose .5mph on the top-end, use the Cool Tool, you can do that too.

Drop 20ssh to 3/4".

This does:
1. No new items to measure in inspection
2. Cool-Tool ensures everyone pumps, including 321
3. "Stock" configuration of a Yamato Foot is retained
4. On a runabout, the Cool-Tool can be taken off quickly for the CSR heat making it quicker than with the Tool.
5. Leave set-back and tuck alone

90% of us will run the Cool Tool, try random stuff, but then realize that the traditional setbacks and designs are stable, proven and fast and we will migrate back to those traditional designs for that very reason.

I'm the goof-ball that is running the extreme setups of tuck and set-back and as you can see at the nationals, got my ass handed to me. Again.

John.