2009 J Rules & Proposals

[PopPop]

It appears that getting on plane is still an issue in some areas. Ask yourselves; what is the purpose of the J classes?. The answer should be; give the kids a taste of racing and have some fun. I've seen so much frustration getting the kids on plane with set-ups that are arbitrarilly at the max height when it simply isn't necessary. Lowering the max set-up height would be a simple solution. My two cents worth says go for it.

[Steve Warnock]

Getting on Plane Secret

Using the APBA props(3 Blades) the motor (OMC/MERC) needs to be 4 to 4.25 inches from the bottom of the boat. You may have to shim the motor back or forward to achieve the sweat spot, but it works! Team B & H can confirm this!

As in a previous thread, kids need to get on the water and need boat time. Winning is secondary. The above recommendations are only going to confuse the working tradition that has been established and is a working for 99% of the participants out there. Rules to appease the .5-1% don't work. If there is a problem Newbee getting on plane, it is our (past and present J Class) membership base that needs to get involved and coach that team.
Restrictors for the J class - leave it alone.
AXS is a different subject. Personally, we have run both motors with equal results.

The J Class is working as it is!

Warbs

[Team B&H]

I always laugh when I see someone trying to sell a used boat as a J/A boat but feel bad for someone who buys it thinking the seller's statement is true. While the basic hull size and shape can be identical for competitive J and A boats; you can't simply take a winning A boat and put a restrictor plate in the motor and be competitive or probably even plane off in J. Nor can you take a competitive J boat and run A competitively with no changes. No one runs the same boat in B and C hydro so why should people think that J and A boats are interchangeable?

Both Susan and Warnock are correct that set up and attention to details are essential, even critical. Both A and J are far more technical than they look from an outsiders viewpoint with the propeller height/kick in rules. The J propellers throw in another variable as not all perform exactly the same and the basic design is somewhat crude compared to other props. I was a strong proponent of the older 2 blade props as they were much better at planing off and slightly faster. My 9 year old had no trouble planing when we started J with them and loved the speed. But they cost more because Craig had to do more hand work so when APBA wanted more propellers because J membership was expanding, the administration and Dewald switch us to the three blade, thick and clunky props. They tested a bunch with Steve and Dylan Justice on an OMC powered Furnal(?) and thought they were neater than sliced bread. We won the Nationals in 2001 with a Merc/two blade and our first opportunity to try the three blades was at our first race in 2002. With the same boat, motor and set up, we couldn't plane off in JH. Changing set ups didn't help, we finally ran our runabout in JH because it would plane. APBA relented on three blades that year and with some input from the Merc prop guys, the props were fine tuned to plane better.

But those factors lead to an evolution in J boats. The critical factor was making sure it planed off and things you can do hull-wise and set up-wise to make it easier to plane off without hurting top speed. And you have to realize that just because it can plane with a stone cold motor at the begining of the day, it has to plane well enough because you'll have a warm/hot motor after that and have slightly less power. Boats evolved to plane easier and then motors moved forward to exploit the prop shaft rules (just like the A class). That hurt planing ability but gained some speed. A couple more iterations and suddenly you have to be pretty sharp to have a super J rig. You don't see any older boats winning the Nationals but newbies buy the older stuff because it is cheap.

There is a problem with younger, smaller, new kids that have lots of immovable lead in their boats. And I have seen numerous new kids being apprehensive about getting way forward to assist planing. Those two factors together make it difficult for them. Several years ago, I proposed a rule that for local (non-championship) races, first year kids could run 20 pounds lighter but receive no national points. The -20 lbs would make it easier to plane, especially with lesser equipment but even with the weight advantage they still wouldn't have the driving skills to start good and dominate. If they want to run for national points or at championship races, they would have to meet the regular class weight. After the first year, they should be heavier and need less weight and have more confidence to move up in the boat to plane it off. Obviously the idea got shot down but I still think it is a great idea.

[Steve Warnock]

I Can't Believe This!!!!

Oh My God!!!!

Did this really happen???

Rautenburg - Hemp - Warnock agreed on a subject?

Either He*l froze over or a new Law Firm was established!

I suppose EDDIE is the Senior Member, Maybe?

WOW!

Warbs

[Kev43V]

Thanks Sam! I had not thought of the cold motor factor (I know i do not know allot)
and then felt there are a few dads that regularly try to get that little bit more out of the setup at the start of the race.
this is the reason i like to see open discussion on a subject. BEFORE someone comes along and proposes a rule change for a perceived problem.
I really like your idea on the 20 lbs also!

[Kev43V]

ROFLMBO @/with Warbs. thats funny buddy

[Skoontz]

Sam, where were you before we started? LOL Well, you just proved the case for a dedicated J boat rule to be phased in over time. you could make it over 6 years for example, so the first year kids would not be effected by the time they left J class.

That aside, the test time I asked to enforce, is it.
As I said before, in region 12, we must beg borrow, or steal, and with great reluctance, our promoter might give one or two laps around the course, and I can count the times that has been offered on one finger. When the boat comes in not being able to plane, I want to pick the finger I count on...But that would get us DQed for the day....

I guess there is no entry fee involved with J testing and water time, so that's why we have to scream for it in 12....All the reason to make a rule enforcement with sanctions. The kids come to race, not plow water, and the fastest way to get them disconnected and unwilling to be involved is to have interest lost....

[RShane]

An Example

hmmm the way i read your post you went the wrong way. I believe you just RAISED the motor 3/8 of an inch in your example of a proposal. if that were implemented i feel that even more J drivers would be left trying to get on plane at the start of races.

I am not submitting this. I just gave an example. Actually you can copy the text, fill in your numbers with your reason why and send it off to me.

[Team B&H]

Test time is something that should be encouraged but not mandated to cover local needs. Who wants to give Js test time early Sat morning at Lake Lawrence when the best water and conditions are available to set records? I hesitate to say we always have J testing in Region 7 but can't remember a race where we didn't (maybe downtown Rockford on July 4th years ago). When we ran J, we always tested when we had the opportunity- even on a Sunday morning when we had the same prop we ran on Sat. Another time to make a run on the clock, try a different fin shape, a slightly leaner carburetor jet or simply more boat time for a young driver. All that time helped make the driver more perceptive to small changes. It got so that he would come back in after a heat and tell me what do do with the carburetor. So testing for Js is great and should be encouraged. We also paid entry fees for J but it was usually a feduced fee.

[csh2z]

Wouldn't dropping the motor 3/8" help with the planing issue and at the same time make "A" boats more viable in "J" so the new guy doesn't get screwed buying the wrong boat?

[Team B&H]

One would have thought that proponents of a rule change would have tested their idea to present some reasonable data for a commission to base an informed, rational decision on. Would lowering the motors make it that much easier to plane? Is 3/8" some magic number or is something else better (1/4 or even 1/2 inch)? Is the effect the same for both motors? Remember how Justice tested the three blades with the OMC and said they were great but when we tried it on our Merc, we broke them loose even deeper?

I know myself if I was faced with a decreased height, I probably would first experiment with the motor farther forward, more like an A boat. And then when I got an idea of where that should be, I'd build another boat with more lift to compensate for the added drag of the prop/gearcase being deeper plus the weight of the motor being farther forward (less like an A boat). So what would you have gained- the ideal boat would still not be an A boat yet would be different than existing J boats.

[Big Don]

Sam has pretty much hit it all right on the head.

We found that just changing drivers with a difference in weight of 15 lbs and running the same rig we might struggle… but 99% of the time our drivers got on plane. We taught them that they had to move around in that boat if they were struggling because of wind or water conditions. Ten pounds of lead in the wrong place and you might struggle.

I’m sure there teams that have tested as much as we have but I would bet over the past years of J racing we have 100’s of hours testing just to get boat time and getting on plane time. Those that have been there can attest to me making them take just “one more run” and it turns into 10 more… Wait I still do that.

Those of you that know me, know I HATE not getting on plane and I didn’t want my kids having to deal with that, therefore, we tested a lot. I know in some areas of the country it’s hard to get water to test so it’s going to be difficult.

I strongly suggest you have test data before you just arbitrarily pick a number and change the heights. We tested one solid weekend with Del Snyder a few years back in conditions that were not idea to see why kids struggle. Del and I left on Sunday night not sure if we really had it figured out . Because the rig would not plane and we would send them right back out and not change a thing and it would get on plane. It started to reinforce our idea that body placement must be real critical in windy conditions. Just dropping the engine didn’t always work. Like I said previously the slightest change in conditions and we were back to square one.

As for restrictor…

In the J class… Is a 40MPH J to fast? Maybe for the 9/10 year olds and first year drivers. But for the kids that have been racing a couple years I don’t think it is. I would also recommend several people do some testing if you are going to slow them down so you have real data.

In AX… I would not change a thing.

[bandit64061]

Sounds really Good!!!!

I agree. If J and AX speeds creep up with each new motor, theoretically we will have 110 MPH J's in 60 years. Well, that, and I just spent a bunch of money on some OMC stuff.....110 MPH J's.....think of the children!!!

I know it takes a village, what's your name anyways?
Sounds like some consrtuction at work here???
I read with int.???

[bandit64061]

What's New???

Back when i used to watch races in Mi. a good A hydro had probs planing , and that's when kg4's ruled ow well tell me something new besides Nobama!!!!

[Skoontz]

Two things here.

First, even though I proposed an enforcement change on safety rule 6, I agree that mandates are not a good thing. So, I must pose this question and hope with the minds that be, someone could come up with an reasonable, ethical solution.

Safety rule 6 seems pretty clear to me, for those who need to read it, it's page 6 of the Junior and stock classes section.

When our race director/promoter does not allow J test time, what consequences are there for him? Has the committee, or promoter not broken that rule?
Because I'll tell you what the long term consequence will be....When 90% of all racers start in the junior classes, and an aging inboard population is taking place every day....

Ok, as we get more anal here, let me rephrase... when a significant number of new racers begin in the J ranks....and an aging inboard class is taking place every day.....No one puts there kid at the age of 18 or 21 in a GN or Pro Stock boat, or even cracker box boat as a novice...So, they get in using the junior classes.


There will not be any racers, or in effect, stock boats will go away in our region as evidenced from the 70's through today...

Anyhow, got suggestions as to how to enforce rule #6?





Second Q. Reading what Sam Hemp wrote about having done extensive testing before being presented to the committee for change......

We have done extensive testing using a shifter (factory stock) gear case on our boat. The results eliminate the need for a gag collar, eliminate the planing issue, eliminate rougher water issues because the lower, heavier foot anchors you in the water. They further reduce start up costs by $1000-$1200 because you don't need a race gear foot and make things much easier if you want to upgrade to the next class. You can run an inset transom, the distance Sam posted is pretty insiginifcant in this case.

The stock cases make more accessible, engines, components, and stuff needed to begin racing. The drop in speed for adults is insignificant, so, big people could get in, and run....
With a kid at the wheel, this lower unit will run right next to the current J classes.

So, I don't even know what rule would be called on this, but, what are the chances for consideration of allowing a legal points scoring class that could even in effect use the same water as the J's so no time would be taken from other classes? Boats running this foot would be scored separately but on the same water because speed is consistent?????