Where's The Beef. Ed?

[ryan_4z]

Sam,

Come on, admit it, your just pissed because you can't find a way around this rule.

[kws]

i will be the first to say i feel he should of piped up before the meeting. I am assuming he did not as i didnt see it here and he has not answered my post to say that he had. BUT i have to agree i dont see how lowering both changes anything.
care to inlighten me?

[csh12M]

3/4 inch

I believe the SORC thinks that lowering the height will knock off some of the 102 ability to pull bigger wheels on big courses and take advantage of its ability to turn higher RPMS. The 302 has more torque but does not seem to rev. as high on a big course, therfore sacraficing some top end to a 102. This may even up the playing field a bit...time will tell. The CSR are both at 3/4 and the parity is a lot closer than the hydro...or at least that is the perception.

CSH12M

[Matt Dagostino]

Maybe................

[QUOTE=kws;. BUT i have to agree i dont see how lowering both changes anything.
care to inlighten me?

the thought is that most 302's can't get it up to 1/2inch so to speak without burning up, so lowering the 102 to 3/4inch will bring the two motors to a height where they can both cool comfortably and race at the same height which may make them equal???

i was shocked to hear a few of the 302 hydro guys saying they have no problem running at 1/2inch. i have my reservations about those statements but we shall see. at 3/4inch i would guess the motor of choice may not be the 102 given the torque the 302 has. should be interesting. to bad the 'parity' committee couldn't have asked a couple of CSH drivers to test the theory during the 2006 season given the apparrant concern with our biggest Stock class....

Heck, Pond has 302's and 102's that we could have tested if 'asked' to do so . i am sure Pater,Allen's,Bowman's etc etc all could have contributed if asked .

[MGallagher]

Dean,

The perception of the parity in CSR is more like a deception. Nationals winner in CSR in recent years. 2000, 302:2001, 302:2002, 302: 2003, 302: 2004, 102:2005, 102:2006, 102. Do you notice the trend. I really shouldn't be saying this!!!

CSR should be 302's only (have the CSR drivers vote on it) so we do not find that there is a parity ,cause apparently there is, and have to go through all this BS.

Also, what if you allow us to shave the pipe a little on the 302(I beleive point #1 by Sam) to loose a little punch a gain the top end to match the 102.

If you keep two different motors in a class long enough someone is going to find out which motor is fastest and how to exploit it. The current or MOST current production motor should be made the dominant motor, plain and simple.

[csh12M]

Perception

Hey Matt,

I think most people know that Runne won the last couple of years with a 102. You credited him with 3 102 wins and I think it was only 2, but you missed Ross win with a 102 in 2003. Your point is why I said it was a perception....although I do think it is a lot closer than in CSH.

Runne 302 nationals rig was not for sale very long. Hope things are going well for you.

Later

[MGallagher]

"I really shouldn't be saying this!!!" wasn't referring to that but more af a pandora's box effect if I mention that there MIGHT be a parity in CSR

They haven't told me yet but I think I am off the team, there are no more boats or motors left.

Revision:RR 2000, 302:RR 2001, 302:RR 2002, 302: TR 2003, 102: RR 2004, 302:RR 2005, 102:RR 2006, 102.

I agree, it is closer, but it could become a larger parity if we keep the motor around, you never know.

[David_L6]

Why don't you APBA C stock guys just outlaw the 102 and sell those 102 motors to the AOF and NBRA guys? That's what happened when the APBA mod guys combined D mod and E mod and threw the 40" Mercs and 44" Mercs into the same class.

[14-H]

**threw the 40" Mercs and 44" Mercs into the same class.

David: Where were all those guys at the Winternats? I had to pull teeth to get that D Mod Special Event on the circular. Ed.

[14-H]

***. The silence from the SORC members is deafening.

The silence following the response is even louder!

[Steve Johnson]

A good thing.....

Some of us D stock guys decided to step up. That class would have sat on the bank had we not.
the world looks through many different windows.

[David_L6]

David: Where were all those guys at the Winternats? I had to pull teeth to get that D Mod Special Event on the circular. Ed.

I can't argue with that! Some of the few people that there are still racing the old 40" mod Merc didn't show/race for whatever reason(s) and that caused the class to almost be canceled.


Side note: I sure was impressed by the D stock that passed Burnin' Vernon Barfield's 40" mod Merc on the outside. I never knew that the D stocks were that fast. I don't remember who it was..... I think it was someone from the left coast and I think he had Mariner cowling on his motor......

[hydroman6]

Side note: I sure was impressed by the D stock that passed Burnin' Vernon Barfield's 40" mod Merc on the outside. I never knew that the D stocks were that fast. I don't remember who it was..... I think it was someone from the left coast and I think he had Mariner cowling on his motor...... [/QUOTE]

That would probably be Todd Cragin (Region 10). He had a really good year in 2006. He's the only Mariner out here.

[Charlie Pater]

I think the SORC made a bad decision which Sam has eloquently pointed out. Now there is back peddling and admonishments that he should have spoken up prior the national meeting. Problem is that people did speak up prior to the meeting. There were good specific reasons presented against lowering the height to ¾ of and inch. I believe what happened was an advocate or two for the ¾ inch restriction at the meeting got a captive audience and people caved. The other points of view that were presented here on hydroracer by people that could not take the time or pay the expense to attend were greatly minimized.

Based on past experience why should Sam or anyone else who could not attend the meeting offer something in consideration for 302 vs 102 parity? Last year the 53M and I test the Yamato 25ssr with the objective to slow it down and reduce its acceleration. A couple of days were spent figuring out how to perform the test, setting up boats, and performing controlled tests. Two boats were set up, one to mimic the Merc 25ssr and the other boat a Yamato 25ssr. We even picked a day that provided perfect water conditions for this kind of testing. Tests were run with changes being made only on the Yamato. The results tabulated and provided to the SORC. The SORC then proceeded to unilaterally make rules with, what I understand little consideration for the test information provided. So why should anyone go through this exercise when the end game is a subjective decision?

Now we are where we are unless the SORC can find a way to reverse its rule. If the organization really wants to do this 302 vs 102 parity in a rational way, then I believe Sam’s points need to be taken seriously. It seems to me the objective of parity, if in fact there is not parity, should be accomplished by a more specific process. First we need to determine the amount of disparity. I think people can figure out a better way to do this than by looking at who wins the Nationals or who uses one motor or the other. Specific testing could be done to determine a quantified difference in performance. If a difference is identified, then an objective to close the difference needs be established. The objective may be as simple as slowing down one motor by ½ or 1 mph or increasing the speed of the other motor. But as Sam said, this cannot be done by making the same change to both motors. Another point is that in this case both motors are very similar, both the powerheads and the lower units. This makes the job of making parity much easer. I am sure that with leadership that is serious about working with the CSH drivers to establish parity by a more scientific testing process, parity will happen.

I own 302s and 102s, have raced both and would like to continue racing each motor. But I am concerned about the effect of the ¾ inch rule because:

1. I believe it does nothing to establish parity.

2. It will widen difference between the faster boats and the average boats. This because I believe it is more difficult to optimize a setup with a greater height restriction and the people that know how to setup a fast boat are usually able to better deal with the greater challenge.

3. The lower height requirement could cause a safety problem because people may set up with a tuck that could cause instability (Re. the “A” tuck problem). I believe Yamato powered CSH boats like to run best with a height between 1/2 inch and 0 inches below the boat bottom.

Charlie Pater

[bill van steenwyk]

Not just a stock commission problem

I notice that some interested parties on this thread are now criticizing Sam for making the comments/suggestions and asking the hard to answer questions he has regards this rule on CSH.

Based on previous experience in life, both business and personal, I have found that people who are criticized after the fact as he is being, are people who should have been sought out for their opinion beforehand, as by the other posts on this thread, it is the general consensus he knows what he is talking about. It has also been my experience that for whatever reason people who DO know what they are talking about and don't suffer fools gladly, pretty much keep their own counsel. That doesn't make his input any less valuable.

Therefore it stands to reason that if he had knowledge that was valuable, beneficial and could have been used to help make an informed decision regards this matter, why wasn't he asked. I hope it wasn't for the simple reason of that old problem, "if it wasn't my idea, it's not worth considering"SOhas a multitude of problems today, as do all the categories, and all the various problems have been brought up again and again on this forum and many others. Fact remains, everything that has been done hsn't attracted that many new drivers, motor manufacturers, boat builders, sponsors, race sites, or any other beneficial items to allow your category or many others to grow.

I see some hard questions being asked by Sam and others, and really no answers. Maybe another good reason to put some of this decision making power back in the hands of your members.

As to the basic criticism of why doesn't he volunteer for the commission, make known, etc.,That is his perogative. Maybe it is as simple as he doesn't want to. That doesn't make his views any less valuable, or his opinions less worthy, or even his criticism less effective in trying to effect change.

Yes it costs money to go to these meetings, give up the time being a commissioner, etc., and then get *****ed at. Why not go a little better prepared with some of the answers to the questions being asked on this thread, have more valuable and better decisions come from the meetings, and take less criticism besides. I guess that is a novel ideal and would probably never work. Anyway it might be worth a thought. And just in case anyone thinks I am picking on the SO commission the same thing has gone double in the past for PRO. I can't wait to hear about the "radio rule" this year. All the worthy things to work on and that is brought up again, especially after the fatality at DePue last year. Does anybody ever think these things through before they are brought up or is it so personal that nobody can think straight.