rule proposal 21

[mike ross]

Just a quick note. John Runne has built in the last 2 years. More than half what the D class needs. 15 to 20 12ft runabouts. He probably has built enough 12 or 13ft runabouts in his career to have 35 Runne d runabouts. We have 2 yrs to to get the numbers up. Dust those old 44xs and get them to a race. Get a few more Tahatsu's on all those C Runabouts you have out west, Darreen you got C runabout. Shove the Tahatsu on it and try D. Come on guys I can vision local elims. MIke

[ryan_4z]

Ya can run CSR , but you will really have to work for it

Is this your big argument? What class will the DSR guys go to? These guys don't even race. Of the 17 drivers that ran DSR last year, 14 only had one race. Not one single person had 5 races in DSR last year. Earl Desiato had more races in ASH than all DSR drivers combined. DSR drivers don't even race. There are more people on this thread, worried about what will happen to DSR, than there are in the entire USA who race DSR. There were only about 6500 points given out to all DSR drivers combined last year, again, Earl Desiato had more points than that by himself in ASH. You guys can't really think that DSR deserves status as a national level class.

[mercguy]

Wtf?

Did you ever stop to think, maybe there just aren't that many people that want to run DSR? Maybe there just isn't a demand for that class anymore. Jesus Christ, there are only about 5 guys in the country that run this class more than once a year. Is that a nationally viable class? Maybe everything isn't the SORC's fault. Maybe Mr. Bass busted his ass trying to fix the wrong class. I tend to think that the D class is beyond fixing. C is the new D. Oh, you mispelled Ed's name, it's Hearn. One more thing, let's not forget that the evil SORC did pass rules just 3 months ago that will promote more equal competition between the Tohatsu and Merc.

C is the new D?? Are you out of your frikkin mind??? Not everyone wants to race in a Yamato powered class!! C is not the most competitive class, just the largest. Are you saying that all the other classes are not compettive??? As to mispelling Eddy's last name...........big ****in deal..........

oh, and the height adjustment rule that you say was passes 3 months ago............well, that is not true, as it was proven to not be an answer to the parity issue and thus not passed (BOD). I should mention though, that Steve Wilde is actually one that wants to make things work with the Tohatsu in D and not screw the class over, like the others seem to be doing.........the parity committee should have been comprised of members like him.

[Steve Johnson]

Mike

No arguement ment. just a statement. big Mike is about as big a dude as I've seen in a CSR and He works his tail off at it. All chill here

[mike ross]

Has anybody tried running a Tahatsu say kicked under 1/4 inch and 1 inch below the bottom from the end of the prop shaft. That should be in the neighborhood of 1/2 inch higher than last years rule would allow. Now if you are running your rig kicked out then this may not be the case. When I sat in on the parity commitee meeting the set ups that where mentioned all seemed to be level or under. Has anyone tried extreme kick under yet? Daren they did change the rules from last year. Measureing from end of the prop shaft should be better. When this happened in the A class everyone complained yet everyone raced and made it work. The D Class is the only class that we can change the rules anytime we want. Keep the data flowwing to the parity committe. MIke

[mercguy]

Yes!!

Has anybody tried running a Tahatsu say kicked under 1/4 inch and 1 inch below the bottom from the end of the prop shaft. That should be in the neighborhood of 1/2 inch higher than last years rule would allow. Now if you are running your rig kicked out then this may not be the case. When I sat in on the parity commitee meeting the set ups that where mentioned all seemed to be level or under. Has anyone tried extreme kick under yet? Daren they did change the rules from last year. Measureing from end of the prop shaft should be better. When this happened in the A class everyone complained yet everyone raced and made it work. The D Class is the only class that we can change the rules anytime we want. Keep the data flowwing to the parity committe. MIke

Mike, you know that Russ Bircher, Mike Kelly AND Bob Wartinger went testing before Bakersfield and tried the extreme kick under setups and it DID NOT work and was proven to be worse. This info was provided to the Parity Committee and the BOD. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BOD did not pass the kick under rule and was the only rule not passed (of all the others that were submitted, including the 3/4" height restriction for CSH). You and many other are able to get away with more kick under because the gearcase is allowed to be altered in mod, you can run 4 blade props and you have more power (OMC 3cyl).....................

YOU SAY "KEEP THE DAT FLOWING"......................data has been provided, but is still not taken into consideration, as the people in charge of making the necessary changes are afraid to hurt thier buddies feelings...............

PS: my DSH (Tohatsu powered) will NOT be ran in stock...........with the current rules....and know several others that will be doing the same thing...........but, instead in mod. NOW, doesn't this sound like the SORC are the ones hurting the D class now???

Ryan you ran off and said maybe Bass Machines picked the wrong class to try and help regain members................I suppose the Sidewinder Co. made the better decision with the A class, where an OMC 15 is available used at almost every boat dealership in the country and gearcases CAN be purchased from the Sidewinder Co???


oh ya, and the SORC is kissing the Sidewinder Co.'s ass, but ****ting on Bass Machines................

OK, that is enough by me on this subject, as my doctor told me this stuff is not worth battling over, as it seems to be pointless, without any merit.................have a great 2007 season..................

[ryan_4z]

C is the new D?? Are you out of your frikkin mind??? Not everyone wants to race in a Yamato powered class!! C is not the most competitive class, just the largest. Are you saying that all the other classes are not compettive??? As to mispelling Eddy's last name...........big ****in deal..........

oh, and the height adjustment rule that you say was passes 3 months ago............well, that is not true, as it was proven to not be an answer to the parity issue and thus not passed (BOD). I should mention though, that Steve Wilde is actually one that wants to make things work with the Tohatsu in D and not screw the class over, like the others seem to be doing.........the parity committee should have been comprised of members like him.

Yes, and yes. Not everyone will be forced to run a Yamato, Mod is always an option with the current D motors, or, as I have mentioned before, get drivers to buy D rigs if you want to see the class survive. If you don't believe that CSH is the most competitive class, then what is?

Daren you have spent so much time b*tching about the height deal in the D class, that you have completely forgotten about the other 2 rules that were passes, in the spirit of parity I might add. I am talking about the weight changes and the approval of different reeds. These may not be big changes, but being subtle is key here. They can't make radical changes, why don't you understand that?

[ryan_4z]

Mike, you know that Russ Bircher, Mike Kelly AND Bob Wartinger went testing before Bakersfield and tried the extreme kick under setups and it DID NOT work and was proven to be worse. This info was provided to the Parity Committee and the BOD. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BOD did not pass the kick under rule and was the only rule not passed (of all the others that were submitted, including the 3/4" height restriction for CSH). You and many other are able to get away with more kick under because the gearcase is allowed to be altered in mod, you can run 4 blade props and you have more power (OMC 3cyl).....................

YOU SAY "KEEP THE DAT FLOWING"......................data has been provided, but is still not taken into consideration, as the people in charge of making the necessary changes are afraid to hurt thier buddies feelings.............

This is great, and the first I have heard of anybody doing any helpful testing. You have to realize that things are going to happen at a certain pace, and changes will be incrimental. Be patient Daren.

PS: my DSH (Tohatsu powered) will NOT be ran in stock...........with the current rules....and know several others that will be doing the same thing...........but, instead in mod. NOW, doesn't this sound like the SORC are the ones hurting the D class now???

No, it sounds like YOU are the one hurting the D class. In a class where every memeber counts, I would think that you would want to help the problem.

Ryan you ran off and said maybe Bass Machines picked the wrong class to try and help regain members................I suppose the Sidewinder Co. made the better decision with the A class, where an OMC 15 is available used at almost every boat dealership in the country and gearcases CAN be purchased from the Sidewinder Co??? ..................

Sidewinder picked the B class actually, another one of those classes that will be cut if nothing happens. Their plans for a new A motor are secondary to trying to fix the B class.

oh ya, and the SORC is kissing the Sidewinder Co.'s ass, but ****ting on Bass Machines................

If Bass Machines had done half the things that Sidewider has done to promote it's product, and get knowlege to the drivers and commissioners, maybe you wouldn't feel this way. The fact is, no one is sh*tting on Bass Machines, they have not done there part. They made a motor. After that they expected us to accept it with open arms and that they would have full reign over the D class. Sidewinder has been bringing prototypes to the National meeting for three years now, how many times did Bass Machines do that? Sidewinder has had there motor present for veiwing at National, Winter National, and a number of local races. It has been raced now twice as a probationary motor. Did Bass Machines do any of this?

Now I don't want to sound like I am coming down on Bass Machines, but you have to realize, if there is a percieved difference in how these two situations are being handled, maybe that has something to do with it.

[mercguy]

WHY.........you ask????

Yes, and yes. Not everyone will be forced to run a Yamato, Mod is always an option with the current D motors, or, as I have mentioned before, get drivers to buy D rigs if you want to see the class survive. If you don't believe that CSH is the most competitive class, then what is?

Daren you have spent so much time b*tching about the height deal in the D class, that you have completely forgotten about the other 2 rules that were passes, in the spirit of parity I might add. I am talking about the weight changes and the approval of different reeds. These may not be big changes, but being subtle is key here. They can't make radical changes, why don't you understand that?

Ryan, have you heard ONE god **** complaint from any Tohatsu owner about the restrictions put on the motor affecting speed and complaining that the motor was not allowed to compete speed wise against the Merc? No, the complaint is against the ILL-HANDLING of the motor, due to the rediculous hegight restriction put on the motor, which (the height restriction)was apparently just pulled out of the air, with no proof or backing that it was the solution. It has now been proven to be a COMPLETE terrible decision, but the info is being ignored...........

[mercguy]

This is great, and the first I have heard of anybody doing any helpful testing. You have to realize that things are going to happen at a certain pace, and changes will be incrimental. Be patient Daren.



No, it sounds like YOU are the one hurting the D class. In a class where every memeber counts, I would think that you would want to help the problem.



Sidewinder picked the B class actually, another one of those classes that will be cut if nothing happens. Their plans for a new A motor are secondary to trying to fix the B class.



If Bass Machines had done half the things that Sidewider has done to promote it's product, and get knowlege to the drivers and commissioners, maybe you wouldn't feel this way. The fact is, no one is sh*tting on Bass Machines, they have not done there part. They made a motor. After that they expected us to accept it with open arms and that they would have full reign over the D class. Sidewinder has been bringing prototypes to the National meeting for three years now, how many times did Bass Machines do that? Sidewinder has had there motor present for veiwing at National, Winter National, and a number of local races. It has been raced now twice as a probationary motor. Did Bass Machines do any of this?

Now I don't want to sound like I am coming down on Bass Machines, but you have to realize, if there is a percieved difference in how these two situations are being handled, maybe that has something to do with it.

well, we can all argue all day long here until we are red in the face, but it is still the SORC's responsibility to make the necessary and appropriate changes..........

[ryan_4z]

Daren,

I've been thinking(I know that is dangerous), and I think I may have come up with and idea that should appease both sides. Ok, the way this parity committee is set-up, they can make changes as the year goes. So action can be taken pretty quickly in the DSH class. I can't argue with the idea of a rule change for safety, as long as there are minimal negative affects. So here is what I propose. First, go testing, find out how much faster this thing is going to go if the height was at 0". Then what you need to do is find a couple of options to bring that speed back down to where it was. You see the problem with raising the height right now, even if it is for safety, is that it would make a pretty dramatic difference. Especially if that means you can actually go out and race hard because your rig is now drivable. I bet if you went to the parity committee and SORC with a compromise, rather than demands, they would be much more receptive to what you have to say. Especially if you can tell them that this should keep the Tohatsu running about the same speed, and make it a safer to drive rig. You'd even have me convinced if you had some numbers to back it up.

[Dr. Thunder]

Has this been considered ...

Daren,

... So here is what I propose. First, go testing, find out how much faster this thing is going to go if the height was at 0".

Faster than who ... faster than what ... you the tester?

Seems to me that the Tohatsu drivers already know they will go faster around the course without the height restriction.

Then what you need to do is find a couple of options to bring that speed back down to where it was. ... You'd even have me convinced if you had some numbers to back it up.

So, how about this ... since the majority of the opposition to this parity issue seems to be coming from Region 10 DSH drivers (both Tohatsu and Merc?) why not have the Parity Committee give Region 10 sanctioned events a 2007 racing year exemption from any and all current parity restrictions on the Tohatsu. Start with a clean slate. After 15-20 races you would have all the data you need to determine if set-up and/or motor restrictions are needed to establish parity.

Require restrictions as currently in place only for the Divisional and, of course, Nationals races for DSH.

Tohatsu "sandbagging" ... nah! wouldn't make sense.
High Point chaser problems ... check the past three years .... shouldn't be a problem unless a Tohatsu driver wins DSH High Point from Region 10.
Then it would sorta be like WSU getting into the NCAA tournament ... not next year pal.

[ryan_4z]

Dr.,

You are really hitting on one of the biggest problems with this whole situation, the Tohatsu was approved without enough information. If we were to place the Tohatsu back on probation, then we could do exactly what you just said. All of this testing should have been done during the probationary period, that is what that time is for. Now that it is a legal motor, it'd kind of to late for all that. We are finding ourselves in a situation where it is becoming more and more apparent that we moved to fast, and we will have to back-track. This is precisely, why I prescribe to the one motor in one class system, with a 3 year phase in/out period. It entirely alleviates these problems, while giving everyone adequate time to plan for the future. I'm starting to wonder how many of the "parity debocles" we are going to have to go through before people start to realize this. Right now we are in a bad situation, we can't make a rule that would make this class safer because it would affect the parity. If the Tohatsu was the only legal motor, there would be no hesitation, the height restriction would be 0", and no one would argue about it. With only one motor in the class, these changes become much more simple.

[Dr. Thunder]

Good points Ryan ... but I really don't think we are too little too late at all.

Dr.,

You are really hitting on one of the biggest problems with this whole situation, the Tohatsu was approved without enough information.

So let's get the information in a controlled environment (Region 10)

If we were to place the Tohatsu back on probation, then we could do exactly what you just said.

No need to put the Tohatsu back on probation at all ... Let's allow ourselves to be just a bit more innovative and creative here.

All of this testing should have been done during the probationary period, that is what that time is for.

Testing is way different than putting an engine through its paces in a competitive environment.

Now that it is a legal motor, it'd kind of to late for all that.

Sorry Ryan, but I have to disagree. Legal motor or not, it's never too late to do what's best for racing ... the best scenario right now would be to subject both motors to a competitive set of tests. Put both engines into a real race environment, a full season of racing right down to record length courses right here in Region 10.


We are finding ourselves in a situation where it is becoming more and more apparent that we moved to fast, and we will have to back-track.

Perhaps the SORC did move too fast, but no matter. It's just not too late to put a competitve approach to the test. Let's let the dogs loose.

I'm starting to wonder how many of the "parity debocles" we are going to have to go through before people start to realize this. Right now we are in a bad situation, we can't make a rule that would make this class safer because it would affect the parity.

Do we have parity? Anyone really believe we do ... so, let's find out.

I would really like to have SORC Commissioners and "Parity Committee" members weigh in on this proposal. Might even be the way to go when the new Sidewinder engine(s) are introduced.

[nbass]

Let me set the Bass Tohatsu record straight.

This is great, and the first I have heard of anybody doing any helpful testing. You have to realize that things are going to happen at a certain pace, and changes will be incrimental. Be patient Daren.



No, it sounds like YOU are the one hurting the D class. In a class where every memeber counts, I would think that you would want to help the problem.



Sidewinder picked the B class actually, another one of those classes that will be cut if nothing happens. Their plans for a new A motor are secondary to trying to fix the B class.



If Bass Machines had done half the things that Sidewider has done to promote it's product, and get knowlege to the drivers and commissioners, maybe you wouldn't feel this way. The fact is, no one is sh*tting on Bass Machines, they have not done there part. They made a motor. After that they expected us to accept it with open arms and that they would have full reign over the D class. Sidewinder has been bringing prototypes to the National meeting for three years now, how many times did Bass Machines do that? Sidewinder has had there motor present for veiwing at National, Winter National, and a number of local races. It has been raced now twice as a probationary motor. Did Bass Machines do any of this?

Now I don't want to sound like I am coming down on Bass Machines, but you have to realize, if there is a percieved difference in how these two situations are being handled, maybe that has something to do with it.

This is Neil Bass speaking from frustration, not Sid Bass my brother the owner of Bass Machines.

Since about 2000 we were aware that the SORC was looking for a solution for the decline in D-stock and the availability of 44xs parts. We only made lower units and towers for the mod guys at that time. Sid did, at the request of some representing the SORC, look into using the merk 60 or 65 HP powerhead as a D-stock. It was way over size, was welded together in places like the exhaust port cover, and it appeared Mercury would not sell powerheads. In observing the need we looked at several brands including Yamaha and Nissan/Tohatsu.

In 2003 we approached the very cooperative Nissan/Tohatsu distributor with a plan to use their powerheads. We obtained EPA approval and submitted a proposal to APBA SORC at their 2004 annual meeting. We basically provide a powerhead at cost and mount it on the Bass machines universal tower and lower unit system. This has been a very low budget project that provides for parts and labor costs, no profit.

The SORC wanted to know how much it would cost (we said under $6000), where are parts available (available from Nissan/Tohatsu dealer across North America). How much are parts (we gave a partial list of cheep parts) and what will it look like (provided a rough sample). The SORC said sure, run it probation this year (2004) collect data and let us know. The Mod commission said the same thing.

Within three months in the spring of 2004 (not years) we built and ran a prototype Bass Tohatsu in the NW and offered others to drive it. We offered the Bass Tohatsu for an introductory price at $4,600, but no one wants to buy a probationary engine. We ran lots of different props, a couple of different boats, even Brian Paulmquist ran it a Laurance Lake in the fall of 2004. I provided all the data for the SORC and anyone else to see. Basically it ran real well, was competitive but did not win the top position.

The 2005 SORC wanted to have it run on a dyno. It was run on a dyno, and yep, it makes more about 3 more HP. But the 44xs they used as a comparison was not necessarily the best available either.

Hence, Ed established a parity committee. The first parity meeting in October 2005 was a disaster. About 30% of the commissioners wanted no part of the Tohatsu even after we had gone to all the above effort and expense to provide a new engine. The conclusion was to slow it down by making it run deep. I tried to say that that is not a good idea, but I do not think anyone even hear me. The next day Sid planned to go public that we will no longer support the SORC and withdraw our engine and re-focus only on mod. I talked to Ed before doing so and was convinced that the parity committee would expediently move to be equitable. That has not happened.

The NW (2006) began buying the engine and found a great and safe performer under AOF rules.

Now, we have invested significant time and money from misleading SORC leaders. The Hot Rod has been established as the engine of choice for J, A, & B, but they have not manufactured anything for public consumption. They have not provided a cost of parts list. How much are parts? How do they compete? Are their suppliers across the USA and Canada? I have nothing against the Hot Rod and we are not in competition with them. In fact, I have offered to promote their product in the NW. However, I want to point out that the playing ground is not level.

Some would like us to send one or more engines east for someone to play with. The zero based budge I explained above does not allow for free engines. If we were to do so the investment would go up and the cost to the racer would be more, much more because of the risk factor in trying to provide a racing product to a very small market.

Lastly, it appears that APBA does not want a D-stock class. Did you notice that in the grand plan the 44xs would be in the C-mod class and the Tohatsu would be only for FE? The Tohatsu is bringing back racing in both the runabout and hydro. Isn’t that what we want? Maybe not. I’m confused.
Neil Bass