J motors...

[sam]

I talked to another J father over the weekend and they said after they got their engine back from this engine builder it was at least 2 MPH faster. He said before they went to the east coast engine builder, they spent 1000.00’s of dollars to try and be competitive against some of these mercury engines and can’t because someone decided that they were going to bend the rules.

Are you 100% certain this source is reliable? It has a certain ring to me ...

If the "certain eastern builder" is who I think they are talking about, he is more than willing to share what makes motors right. He just wants to make sure kids have fun ... and motors he has built have been inspected over and over without being DQ'ed.

[Big Don]

Dear "Soon-to-be..": There is no grey area: Mercury is legal; anything else is not under the rule that is in the book.

Ed I'm not trying to debate you here and I don't think I would win if we were too... I'm straight to the point and you add all your fluff and big words and I then I get all confused…

But let's say that ANY Mercury ring is legal as it states in the rule book...and I agree that is what it says. (I don't think that is what we meant but somehow that got in the rule book) Is that what we really want it to say? If the rings in question are let’s say old KG4 rings and I have some in my basement so I use them and it give me an advantage how does that help the new person getting into racing? They don't have them available to them like us old timers.

[Kev43V]

Im with Don on this. You old timers know enough to make for a very stiff learning curve for the newbies as it is. (Im just jealous because i wasn't born into boatracing too LOL)

[Big Don]

Are you 100% certain this source is reliable? It has a certain ring to me ...

If the "certain eastern builder" is who I think they are talking about, he is more than willing to share what makes motors right. He just wants to make sure kids have fun ... and motors he has built have been inspected over and over without being DQ'ed.

Just because engines have been inspected in the past does not mean they are legal. Many people have been disqualified over the years running the same engine that was inspected the year/s before and passed. Maybe they were not sure what to look for in the past?
I know the engine builder that everyone is referring to comes on here and I hope he does so he can clear the air so everyone can either move on and relax or start worrying.
Maybe Ed Runne can comment on what he thinks and if he has a way to tell.
All I’m trying to do is make sure everyone knows what we are going to do….
We’re all going to feel real bad if 5 kids get tossed at nationals because of this. I assure you it is the worst thing to have to go through with a child.

[14-H]

Ed ***your fluff and big words and I then I get all confused…

But let's say that ANY Mercury ring is legal as it states in the rule book...and I agree that is what it says. (I don't think that is what we meant but somehow that got in the rule book) Is that what we really want it to say? ***.

Don: I totally agree with you. I don't think that is good for the sport either. The problem is that we have to go with what the rule SAYS, not what you, we, someone else, INTENDED it to say. That is because anyone reading the rule has no idea what was intended outside what is said. Enforcing the rules by what was "intended" as opposed to what the rule actually says is just as bad for the sport. No one can tell just by reading the rules what was intended if that is different than what is said.

BTW: the longest word I used in that post was "anything": eight letters.

[14-H]

Just because engines have been inspected in the past does not mean they are legal. ***

I agree totally with this. Maybe the guy that inspected it for the first 5 times was a boob. Doesn't mean that the 6th time it shouldn't be thrown out if there is a problem.

I know the engine builder that everyone is referring to comes on here and I hope he does so he can clear the air so everyone can either move on and relax or start worrying.
***.

Engine builders (and boat builders) have obligations to their customers, not everyone in the whole world. Here, we disagree, Don. Ed.

[14-H]

Are you 100% certain this source is reliable? It has a certain ring to me ...

***.

Sam: watch the puns, please. 11-W doesn't like such fluff!

[14-H]

Don: ***The problem is that we have to go with what the rule SAYS, not what you, we, someone else, INTENDED it to say. ***

The Court thus construes the words 'complying with any requirements under this section' to read 'appearing and testifying or producing do***ents other than those required to be kept pursuant to this section.'

Construction, no doubt, is not a mechanical process and even when most scrupulously pursued by judges may not wholly escape some retrospective infusion so that the line between interpretation and substitution is sometimes thin.

But there is a difference between reading what is and rewriting it.

The Court here does not adhere to the text but deletes and reshapes it. Such literary freewheeling is hardly justified by the assumption that Congress would have so expressed it if it had given the matter attentive consideration (FN5).

FN5 reads:
But cf. Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, c. 6:
"The question is' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
"The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be the master; that's all." (See: 335 U.S. 1 , 43)

Sorry, Don. I couldn't help myself. Ed.

[wdlong1226]

system

it,s funny how there is always someone that will find a way to beat the system.I just find it funny how five years ago not many people were running mercurys.only some choice people, most of them been around boat racing forever.so how do you beat big money,just keep at it, eventually you,ll find a way to beat the system. ithappens every day in real life, so why not in boat racing

[csh2z]

The rules should be interpreted within the context they are presented not as seperate entities

[17W]

Dear "Soon-to-be..": There is no grey area: Mercury is legal; anything else is not under the rule that is in the book.

Dear "Master of Words",

In my eyes if the rule is not specific enough & allows individuals to become creative, it is a gray area.

[dholt]

If the intent of the rule was to force people to use rings made just for the 15.9 Merc, then it is a poorly written rule.

"The use of Genuine Mercury oversized pistons and rings is permissible."

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Whether it was manufactured in 1956 or 2006....if it's Merc made...it is legal.

[hydroracer25]

If the intent of the rule was to force people to use rings made just for the 15.9 Merc, then it is a poorly written rule.

"The use of Genuine Mercury oversized pistons and rings is permissible."

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Whether it was manufactured in 1956 or 2006....if it's Merc made...it is legal.

DHolt,

Therein lies the problem. I'm pretty sure what the intent was, I'm also pretty sure what the that it will be very difficult to determine if the rings were Mercury circa 1956 or Lawnboy 1989 or John Deere 1922. I agree that the rule states "Genuine Mercury...", but I don't know how you even prove that the rings were Mercury. No doubt the rule needs to be clarified.

With regards to some people's speculation or rumors about breaking in faster and therefore being better OR a "2mph" gain by "these" rings, no can do...I don't buy it. The piston rings primary function is to seal the piston to the cylinder bore and does so by combustion pressures forcing the ring to the lower flank of the piston groove. I don't even believe that a end gap improvement of one ring vs. another type will make any measureable difference in performance unless the gap is grossly oversized.

I also don't think it's fair to say that the reasons the Mercury's are winning today vesus 6 years ago is due to the rings. We all know that any engine when first introduced is not fully developed (set-up, props, boats, and even engine performance itself). The main reason the Mercs are running faster today is due to the a lot of hardwork and testing by there owners.

The J-Committee is now aware of the problem and will have to make decisions on how to best handle this at the Nationals and over the off-season to clarify the rules.

Mark

[Skoontz]

How would you be able to ever tell

that a non Merc, or for that matter any ring was not OEM assuming all machining was the same? Sure, there were aluminum rings made, and the obvious check would be a magnet. The "taper" rings, as found in Merc/OMC tops are called "Key Ground", at least that is the jargin my machinist uses for them.

I know there was something way back when that a ring had to be able to support it's own weight in the cylinder, which lead to aluminum rings under the top compression ring in some motors as if the friction from that ring would hold itself in the cylinder, it was legal.

So, as the title asks...Other than different metals, assuming the machining was the same, how could you ever tell without destroying the ring itself?

[bh/]

M20h

I got curious about the reference to 50 yr old Merc rings, KG4s [60yrs old] etc. The only bore size in all of Merc's 69yrs of production that comes close to the Merc 159's 2.38" nominal bore size[2 & 3/8"] is the venerable M20H, 2 & 7/16", ie; .060" over the standard bore of a 159.
Rings are common, OEM and jobber, for it and any of its 20/40/60" cousins.
20H builders in the '60s commonly fitted dead rings, and/or aluminum rings, which were quite legal then
and now. Obviously only Merc rings would be legal in the 159, but 'dead' rings are easily created by baking at 400F in a 'fast' oven. I woud think that any builder with 20" experience would have tried this, but I can not see it accounting for 2mph in an AX ? Not legal of course would be Y80 rings, coincidentally the same bore as a 159.
Almost makes one want to go to Whitney Point.