Tweet
The 302 has been around for almost 15 years and the commission has yet to make a single specific rule or spec change to help the 302. They haven't done Jack---- to give it even the tiniest advantage and subtley make it the engine of choice. The SORC guys profess to have suddenly found religion and now see the light but still have done nothing to allow specific changes to benefit the 302. They change the same rule for both motors and expect it to make a difference? Are deathbed converions sincere?
I don't profess to know everything, but my experience and a tiny amount of common sense tells me that lowering both motors the same amount won't change anything relative to each other. It obviously has upset a number of drivers of both 302 and 102 stuff. However I am open minded and reasonable. I am willing to believe that the SORC and their puppet parity committee knew precisely what they were doing and made an informed, thoughtful and as J Runne fantasizes, a responsible decision. I will believe it, that is, when they release the test data and relative information they used to arrive at this decision. I may be from Wisconsin but have a "Show Me" philosophy.
Tell me the type of boat used for test purposes, driver, propshaft heights tested, kick-in-kick-out settings,number of props tested for each, weight of the rig with both motors. Since the 102 takes a taller transom setting, this moves the motor back farther- was this fact taken into consideration? Was there any attempt to move the 302 back farther so the prop location and weight distribution was equal for both? Release the test data with top speeds, rpms, 45-60 (or equivalent) acceleration times and lap times on the same course for each motor and some sort of evaluation as to the quality of each motor-because we all know some are better than others. If this data shows the results they want us to believe, great. I'm sure they have all the info on a nice Excell spread sheet they can easily e-mail to us or post here.
Give us the facts for how much lowering each motor cost in top speed, helped or hurt acceleration times and how it changed the lap times. Show us that the change does exactly what the king says it will do. I kept hearing how the SORC needed facts and testing info for the 25SS/CSR and Merc/Tohatsu before they could make any changes. Remember Mike Ross almost begging for test results? Since they insisted on having proper data before making any changes to those classes, they must have good data as a basis to formulate their changes for CSH. Right? Maybe?? OK, maybe not really good data but how about some sketchy data??? Well, how about a fact???? No facts either?????? Well how about unfounded opinion? I think we gettin hotta now!
In lieu of any data, I have to assume the wonderboys made their decision solely on emotion and SWAG. You know, scientific wild a-s guess. So come on, Ed, release the test data and show me/us that we're all wet. I'm sure the data will have to be included in the meeting minutes and we'll get to see it eventually, but why not release it now and show us that this decision was based on facts and reason and will produce exactly the results they boast about now.
As I have stated before, if they really wanted to make the 302 relatively faster so it would be the motor of choice, they could have done a number of things that I have talked about for years. Here's a list of my TOP TEN ideas to change the balance of power in CSH.
1. Allow some minor mods to the 302 like blueprinting heads to min CCs or squaring the exhaust port a bit.
2. Allow drying up the tower housing.
3. Add weight to a 102.
4. Remove weight from the 302.
5. My old favorite was to add 5 lbs every year to the 102 until a 302 wins the Nationals two years in a row but they've missed too many years for this to give quick results now.
6. Keep the 102 at 1/2 inch and let the 302s go back to level.
7. Keep the 302 at 1/2 inch and lower the 102 to 3/4 inch. Hell, go to 1 3/8inch so you can use the A inspection tool and make it easy on the inspector.
8. Have Tad Olson revise the exhaust megaphone casting to make a new, mandatory megaphone for the 102 that is longer and will hurt the last bit of top speed.
9. Eliminate the 102 and require everyone to run a 302. Hey, that's what the 102 guys did to the Mercurys after they couldn't beat Matt and me, how about a dose of the same poison for them?
10. Ok, if you've made it this far here's the best one but too simple and logical for most SORC commissioners to grasp. Make the 102 run two head gaskets. Simple, cheap, easy to inspect, doesn't obsolete everyone's set-ups, props or boats. I'm not looking for a giant change and this would probably be enough. It will cut a bit of acceleration and not allow the 102 to pull the very stiff props that give it that last bit of top speed on a national sized course. It's that last 1/2-1 mph of top end speed that is the killing difference. No, I haven't tested it but then I'm not one of the gifted members of the parity committee. I have talked to some 15 guys who have had experienced an increase of 1 CC. This would increase the 102 CCs by approx 1.8 CC. (2.625 bore x 0.020 gasket thickness)
The top secret technique underlying all my possibilities is that each idea addresses only one motor and leaves the other unchanged. I underatand that changing only one thing is difficult for a powerful administration when they could change two just as easily.
All of my ideas WILL change the relative performances of the motors. I don't believe the SORC's newest blunder will do so.
Where's the data, Ed? Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining when we all can see you pissing.
I don't profess to know everything, but my experience and a tiny amount of common sense tells me that lowering both motors the same amount won't change anything relative to each other. It obviously has upset a number of drivers of both 302 and 102 stuff. However I am open minded and reasonable. I am willing to believe that the SORC and their puppet parity committee knew precisely what they were doing and made an informed, thoughtful and as J Runne fantasizes, a responsible decision. I will believe it, that is, when they release the test data and relative information they used to arrive at this decision. I may be from Wisconsin but have a "Show Me" philosophy.
Tell me the type of boat used for test purposes, driver, propshaft heights tested, kick-in-kick-out settings,number of props tested for each, weight of the rig with both motors. Since the 102 takes a taller transom setting, this moves the motor back farther- was this fact taken into consideration? Was there any attempt to move the 302 back farther so the prop location and weight distribution was equal for both? Release the test data with top speeds, rpms, 45-60 (or equivalent) acceleration times and lap times on the same course for each motor and some sort of evaluation as to the quality of each motor-because we all know some are better than others. If this data shows the results they want us to believe, great. I'm sure they have all the info on a nice Excell spread sheet they can easily e-mail to us or post here.
Give us the facts for how much lowering each motor cost in top speed, helped or hurt acceleration times and how it changed the lap times. Show us that the change does exactly what the king says it will do. I kept hearing how the SORC needed facts and testing info for the 25SS/CSR and Merc/Tohatsu before they could make any changes. Remember Mike Ross almost begging for test results? Since they insisted on having proper data before making any changes to those classes, they must have good data as a basis to formulate their changes for CSH. Right? Maybe?? OK, maybe not really good data but how about some sketchy data??? Well, how about a fact???? No facts either?????? Well how about unfounded opinion? I think we gettin hotta now!
In lieu of any data, I have to assume the wonderboys made their decision solely on emotion and SWAG. You know, scientific wild a-s guess. So come on, Ed, release the test data and show me/us that we're all wet. I'm sure the data will have to be included in the meeting minutes and we'll get to see it eventually, but why not release it now and show us that this decision was based on facts and reason and will produce exactly the results they boast about now.
As I have stated before, if they really wanted to make the 302 relatively faster so it would be the motor of choice, they could have done a number of things that I have talked about for years. Here's a list of my TOP TEN ideas to change the balance of power in CSH.
1. Allow some minor mods to the 302 like blueprinting heads to min CCs or squaring the exhaust port a bit.
2. Allow drying up the tower housing.
3. Add weight to a 102.
4. Remove weight from the 302.
5. My old favorite was to add 5 lbs every year to the 102 until a 302 wins the Nationals two years in a row but they've missed too many years for this to give quick results now.
6. Keep the 102 at 1/2 inch and let the 302s go back to level.
7. Keep the 302 at 1/2 inch and lower the 102 to 3/4 inch. Hell, go to 1 3/8inch so you can use the A inspection tool and make it easy on the inspector.
8. Have Tad Olson revise the exhaust megaphone casting to make a new, mandatory megaphone for the 102 that is longer and will hurt the last bit of top speed.
9. Eliminate the 102 and require everyone to run a 302. Hey, that's what the 102 guys did to the Mercurys after they couldn't beat Matt and me, how about a dose of the same poison for them?
10. Ok, if you've made it this far here's the best one but too simple and logical for most SORC commissioners to grasp. Make the 102 run two head gaskets. Simple, cheap, easy to inspect, doesn't obsolete everyone's set-ups, props or boats. I'm not looking for a giant change and this would probably be enough. It will cut a bit of acceleration and not allow the 102 to pull the very stiff props that give it that last bit of top speed on a national sized course. It's that last 1/2-1 mph of top end speed that is the killing difference. No, I haven't tested it but then I'm not one of the gifted members of the parity committee. I have talked to some 15 guys who have had experienced an increase of 1 CC. This would increase the 102 CCs by approx 1.8 CC. (2.625 bore x 0.020 gasket thickness)
The top secret technique underlying all my possibilities is that each idea addresses only one motor and leaves the other unchanged. I underatand that changing only one thing is difficult for a powerful administration when they could change two just as easily.
All of my ideas WILL change the relative performances of the motors. I don't believe the SORC's newest blunder will do so.
Where's the data, Ed? Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining when we all can see you pissing.
Comment