rule proposal 21

[Merc1]

Ryan 4Z

It gets old reading your posts! You argue in one direction and then another, just to argue! All of which is based on speculation and half truths. If you are going to argue for or propose rule change, do all of us a favor and EDUCATE yourself on the issue FIRST! Then TRY to give an informed answer or conclusion. You clearly have not done this. I know you like quotes so here are two for you!

All of you, look in the mirror and ask that person if they have ever even tried to grow this sport that we are so passionate about. The answer won't surprise me. John Runne 2-Z

I really don't know what to tell you about promoting the sport or any single class.

same guy! Don't get on your soapbox and lecture us about promoting boat racing, when you can't even come up with one reason why you like to race. Finally Ryan, again I ask Where exactly do the D drivers expect to pull new racers from to grow the class? I'll answer for you, 25 and C! D hydro or runabout are not entry level classes! So why don't you step up? I'm sure there are plenty of potential racers or existing ones that would buy the equipment you run now to fund the new D you could be driving. I'll eagerly await your excuses not to do it!

[csh2z]

Those quotes are not Ryan's! They should also not be taken out of context.

[ryan_4z]

It gets old reading your posts! You argue in one direction and then another, just to argue! All of which is based on speculation and half truths. If you are going to argue for or propose rule change, do all of us a favor and EDUCATE yourself on the issue FIRST! Then TRY to give an informed answer or conclusion. You clearly have not done this. I know you like quotes so here are two for you! same guy! Don't get on your soapbox and lecture us about promoting boat racing, when you can't even come up with one reason why you like to race. Finally Ryan, again I ask Where exactly do the D drivers expect to pull new racers from to grow the class? I'll answer for you, 25 and C! D hydro or runabout are not entry level classes! So why don't you step up? I'm sure there are plenty of potential racers or existing ones that would by the equipment you run now to fund the new D you could be driving. I'll eagerly await your excuses not to do it!

Wow, you really showed your smarts here didn't you. First off, why don't you sign your posts like a man if you are going to attack me. Second off, if you are going to quote me, I have a lot of really good quotes, you could use somthing I actually said. You could have at least been bright enough to take my father's name out of the quote you claim is mine. Third, why don't you educate yourself, see, I dedicate my life to this very thing, I know what's going on. Lastly, if you want a D driver, I'd love to. Why would I want to sell my CSH rig, when I can race it anywhere in the country, and it is the most competitive class in the country? Why don't you pony up the 6-7 Gs it would take to put toghether a rig, and I would love to drive it. So there is my "excuse", I'm a poor 23 year old kid, if that's not good enough for you then, well nevermind I won't say it here I'll wait until I meet you face to face.

[race4kaos]

Frank,

Not that I'm the founder of the Runne Fan Club or anything, but I'm curious what you think is the most competitve class in the country?

I've raced J, KG, FA, A, B, C, D, & FE Mod Hydro; KG, FA, A, B & 2-person Mod Runabout; A, B, 20, 25, C & D Stock Hydro; A, B & 25 Stock Runabout; 45sst & sst45. IMHO, CSH is as competitve as it gets nationally (A & 20 are right there too).

Do you think your pictured DMod is where it's at today? Is competition based on local numbers?

[Merc1]

The picture is of a C quincy. As to what is the most competitive class, That would be too tough to judge. I would base my opinion on particular drivers ability, but that isn't very accurate either is it? There are a number of great drivers spread through all of the classes. I race against the likes of Palmquist and Hauenstein on a regular basis.( sorry mike no umlaut above the U) To start naming names would be like compairing apples to apples. So my answer is I have no answer, anything else would be an injustice to those unnamed.

[Cameraboy]

Do it better this time

I'm going to disagree with Neil on one point, but agree with him on others regarding the Tohatsu new motor "process". I say "process", because it doesn't look like there was/is a process in place (not going there on Merc 15). There is a chance to have one for the Sidewinders...but will we?

For starters, if a proposal for a new motor comes up, the SORC needs to decide - Yes, we want a new motor in this class(es). At that point, the SORC or its designee needs to perform some due dilligence - is this company going to be able to deliver this new motor (and parts) at a reasonable price and for a reasonable amount of time? This doesn't need to be done in a way that discriminates against small manufacturers.

Next, the probation period. I think it needs to be a little more robust that "motor X is probationary in Class Y for the 2007 season". There should be a requirement that the motor race a minimum number of heats in at least one Region in each Division. And if that means the manufacturer has to pony up more than one motor for use, so be it (heck, you can always resell them). Running the motor in one Region or doing an exhibition at Nationals shouldn't cut it as a probation period.

And there needs to be fair critieria set up prior to the probation period as to what "data" the SORC or their designee wants to see. None of this after the fact BS. If dyno data is wanted, say it up front. If the motor needs to be run at different heights, say it up front. Size of boat, runabout/hydro? GPS or speedo? Photos or video? Any driver or drivers with credibility? Lay that out up front.

Are we willing to try to have a transparent process with new motors, or continue to do things in a way that seems to leave people suspicious? It's all about perception. It doesn't matter if peoples intentions are pure if it doesn't appear that way. And even with the Internet, there is still a lot of miles and a few big mountain ranges between the Western Division and the rest of the Divisions. It takes communication on both sides of that divide.

The Plan for the future doesn't work without new motors, just like it doesn't work keeping every current class alive. The Sidewinders need a fair an open process to show that they can do the job. But they have to do the job.

Is the SORC (yes, I'm asking commissioners) willing to use a process to show these motors in a fair light, as outlined above?

[greybeard]

my daddy said...

Perception is reality son...

[mike ross]

You know if you read the Mod rule on page 33 it looks almost just like the rule we are trying to pass here. The big difference here is the 35 boats vs 10 boats. In looking at our numbers we can get the 35 boats if we all work at it. Some classes will take more work than others but if you run in one of these classes you now have become a class promoter. You help and find what ever is needed to get the class #s back up. You will be calling folks before race dates to make sure they are coming. You might be a person who lends out a rig. Any equipment you know of that is sitting and not being raced you find a home for it or encourage that person to get it back on the race coarse. Our rule says you can race it localy forever. Mike

[ryan_4z]

Excellent post Mike. If I didn't know any better I'd think that you've been racing Stocks for 30 years.

[nbass]

Over and Out

Mike Johnson thanks you for speaking up. It has appeared over the years that Mercury, OMC, and any other manufacturer has stayed away from the small racing engines for several reasons. The market is ridiculously small, APBA SORC is too hard to please, and there is no significant return on investment. I think I can safely say that my brother and I have learned that lesson the hard way and will never seek to provide the SORC any solutions without them first making some up front written guarantees. If there were such guarantees, than maybe we would have sent an engine east to be run by others. As for selling a used engine that has been potentially abused, not likely and further more, we do not sell used junk because our customers rely on our history of providing a good product.

I am very frustrated with the SORC inaction and feel it best that I shutdown any further contact with hydroracer.net.
Neil Bass

[mercguy]

see...........

Mike Johnson thanks you for speaking up. It has appeared over the years that Mercury, OMC, and any other manufacturer has stayed away from the small racing engines for several reasons. The market is ridiculously small, APBA SORC is too hard to please, and there is no significant return on investment. I think I can safely say that my brother and I have learned that lesson the hard way and will never seek to provide the SORC any solutions without them first making some up front written guarantees. If there were such guarantees, than maybe we would have sent an engine east to be run by others. As for selling a used engine that has been potentially abused, not likely and further more, we do not sell used junk because our customers rely on our history of providing a good product.

I am very frustrated with the SORC inaction and feel it best that I shutdown any further contact with hydroracer.net.
Neil Bass

due to the inappropriate actions of the SORC, there is a possiblity of losing another "engine provider" for the stock outboard ranks........and this thread started because classes want to be eliminated and the SORC wants to do that based on class numbers..............well, HOW IN THE HELL are the numbers supposed to rise with poor decisions by the SORC? Yes, the SORC approved the Tohatsu for DSH (and DSR), which was a good decision since it would help build the class, now MAKE IT RIGHT, so the motor is given a fair shot and the class numbers will grow............I know 3 new DSH/Tohatsu rigs ready to hit the water, once the bull**** is straightened out...........

I am sure the DSH/44XS owners would want more competition and participation in the class and new boats, so that they do not have to beg everyone to show up and race and not have to constantly loan out their own equipment to have a full field........

otherwise, I guess the Tohatsu owners might just change over to DSR, since there is no height restriction put on the motor their..........well, not yet anyways...........

PRO does sound better everyday though..........anyone want to buy a 20ft enclosed trailer full of stock C Yamato's and C boats (4), along with a BRAND NEW DSH/Tohatsu outfit and a complete Merc powered CMH outfit??
(1) complete 350CCH would be so much easier to campaign........

[Dr. Thunder]

I'm going to disagree with Neil on one point, but agree with him on others regarding the Tohatsu new motor "process". I say "process", because it doesn't look like there was/is a process in place (not going there on Merc 15). There is a chance to have one for the Sidewinders...but will we?
<snip>
Is the SORC (yes, I'm asking commissioners) willing to use a process to show these motors in a fair light, as outlined above?

Mike, (assuming that you were not responding to Neil Bass) I think we are both saying essentially the same thing in terms of expecting a well defined "process" for new motors to even be accepted as a probationary engine.

Stock Outboard Racing Rule 21 (d) sets forth a well defined protocol for how new engines are to be introduced so I doubt we have a problem there. But what I do see as problematic is the next piece of the puzzle ... how to measure against the elusive "parity" standard. What do we define as parity? Is it simply whether or not two engines of differing manufacturer go around the course within a +/- x-mph range of each other? If that becomes the benchmark then "testing" extensively with differing boat designs, set-ups etc. may give you some relevant data to use to determine "parity".

Unfortunately, it looks like folks are saying we don't have sufficient data ... so let's use some arbitrary (in some opinions) surrogate value like height to be the determinate.

Therefore, absent sufficient data why not use real time competitive opportunities to gather the needed relevancy as to "parity". Why not just let the existing Merc and Tohatsu engines in Region 10 go at it for a full racing season with "no holds barred" and have the year end results speak for any needed changes to achieve "parity".

[f8andbethere]

Process is not rocket science

There are several motorsport organizations who go through this process every year so I don't understand why this is such a problem.

I don't see such a fuss in the AMA where four manufacturers go through a homologation process everytime they submit an motor.

It is perhaps one of the things that has kept the sport down -- the fact that for some reason the powers that be would rather have no new motors than a motor from a source that is not within 100 miles of Milwaukee, WI.

Very sad.

f/8

[Brian10s]

Submitted Proposal to Commissions

The following proposal has been submitted (in various versions) to the commissions the last 2 years. It has not even gotten a motion to put get it on the floor for discussion much less a vote.

PROPOSAL TO THE MOD, STOCK, PRO AND Junior COMMISSIONS

FOR CONSIDERATION IN REGARDS TO PROTOTYPE ENGINE ELIGABILITY

Proposal: To mandate that any new engine/ powerhead must participate during it’s probationary period (receive a finishing position) in at least six races in more than one division and must be on display at the Winter & Summer National Championships and at 3 of 4 Divisionals, with information sheets containing data specs, availability, pricing and summary sheets with lap times from the races run as a prototype, in order to be considered for entry into an existing class the following year.

Reason: To keep the membership informed and ensure an opportunity for the membership to see the new engine/ powerhead at a local event in competition with the existing engines of that class. Also to ensure that new engine/ powerhead data is circulated to the membership by being available at the National, Winter National & Divisional Championship events.

Explanation: While we continue to need new engines in order for our sport to grow, the fear of the unknown new engine/ powerhead can have a negative effect on all competitors. Especially when we are introducing a new engine/ powerhead into an existing class, that resentment can cause loss of participation, which is the very thing we are trying to avoid by adding a new engine. However, if that new engine/ powerhead has been seen/touched/ examined, it now has lost its “unknown” status and could enter a class with much less controversy. Also, by having a motor mandated to compete in various events this will also gauge the manufacturer’s commitment to our sport and the drivers’ commitment to that manufacturer. While competing, the new engine/powerhead would provide on the water data through lap times and competition results that could be used by commissions to ensure parity between the old and new engines in a class.

[Cameraboy]

Mike, (assuming that you were not responding to Neil Bass) I think we are both saying essentially the same thing in terms of expecting a well defined "process" for new motors to even be accepted as a probationary engine.

Stock Outboard Racing Rule 21 (d) sets forth a well defined protocol for how new engines are to be introduced so I doubt we have a problem there. But what I do see as problematic is the next piece of the puzzle ... how to measure against the elusive "parity" standard. What do we define as parity? Is it simply whether or not two engines of differing manufacturer go around the course within a +/- x-mph range of each other? If that becomes the benchmark then "testing" extensively with differing boat designs, set-ups etc. may give you some relevant data to use to determine "parity".

Unfortunately, it looks like folks are saying we don't have sufficient data ... so let's use some arbitrary (in some opinions) surrogate value like height to be the determinate.

Therefore, absent sufficient data why not use real time competitive opportunities to gather the needed relevancy as to "parity". Why not just let the existing Merc and Tohatsu engines in Region 10 go at it for a full racing season with "no holds barred" and have the year end results speak for any needed changes to achieve "parity".

Actually, Dr T., I was responding to the other Neil. But thank you for pointing out something that I did not clarify. There is a detailed process in rule 21 D, but it says nothing about probation and how it should be handled. Of course, there may be language in another section that covers that.

Ryan, if the thinking in my post (and Brian's) reflects the thinking of somebody in the sport for 30 years, then you are implying that the current decision makers have been doing this stuff for less than five years.