PRO 60% Sponson length rule questions

[David Weaver]

So, overlap rules just can not be applied? ... this would mean that the existing overlap rules are actually useless.

Suppose someone figured out a bottom shape that had less than 60% sponson length but could turn like a tunnel ... would this shape be outlawed or would the driver(s) have to follow overlap/turn rules?

Effective application of the overlap rule would in-time have an affect. Early on, there likely would be a higher than average potential of collision. Of course, we have gone to races with OPC's with all racing a "hydro" course (Lakeland for example). The OPC's managed to avoid chopping one another in these sweeping turns. But, many also blew over backwards on the straightaways, as they were not used to the speed carried onto the strait and probably used too much trim.


On the second point, I believe that capsule boat using a "Euro style" bottom is going to be able to turn tighter than a typical US capsule boat. And, if the Euro style capsule boat adds engine trim then look-out!!!! These boats will have a significant turning advantage and will meet the 60% rule.

[Composite Specialties]

On the second point, I believe that capsule boat using a "Euro style" bottom is going to be able to turn tighter than a typical US capsule boat. And, if the Euro style capsule boat adds engine trim then look-out!!!! These boats will have a significant turning advantage and will meet the 60% rule.

Exactly! Finally, someone gets it! I am building hydros, not tunnels......

[Kristi Ellison]

Did we not just run against European style bottoms? Not turn issues that I remember and I did go through plenty turns with them. I don't think Marc is saying tunnels per say. The PRO division is all about inovation why not open it up and let the boat buliders do what they do best. You guys argue so much about what if's...think positive. The way I understand this it helps with handling in rough water and the europeans sure showed us they could go right over that rough stuff. We have to cancel races due to a little wind this could eventually open up more water to race on....just my 2 non boat head cents.

[David Weaver]

To Quote Jackie Gleason from a Famous Movie

Exactly! Finally, someone gets it! I am building hydros, not tunnels......

What we have here is a failure to communicate!!

The Mostes that I raced, just met the APBA 60% sponson rule (I measured it with a sharp-eyed PRO Commissioner). The clearance was a lot less than I recognized. As Krisiti noted, these boats can handle some very tough water conditions (there certainly are limits and they will struggle equally with swells). The boats plane-off very easily and with a lot less strain on the engine. I cannot wait to see one on a Capsule boat. It could make a weaker engine (by design) more competitive.

[Tim Small]

Capsule class future

How about we build light euro style carbon fiber capsule boats with 2 cylinder 500 engines on them. The cost of the engine would be cut in half, the handling would be much better and safer, you could run in rougher water, and wouldnt need a crew of 5 to lift it. It might not be quite as fast as the 4 cylinder, but the weight advantage and better boat control would make for comparable lap times. We need new blood in the capsules, and this may be a direction to think about for the future.

[Composite Specialties]

Exactly!

How about we build light euro style carbon fiber capsule boats with 2 cylinder 500 engines on them. The cost of the engine would be cut in half, the handling would be much better and safer, you could run in rougher water, and wouldnt need a crew of 5 to lift it. It might not be quite as fast as the 4 cylinder, but the weight advantage and better boat control would make for comparable lap times. We need new blood in the capsules, and this may be a direction to think about for the future.

This is exactly what I am trying to open up by changing the old rule and replacing it with new rules so we can step out of the box for the hydro design and open it up to endless possibilities for the future of the capsule classes.

[David Weaver]

Further Clarification

This is exactly what I am trying to open up by changing the old rule and replacing it with new rules so we can step out of the box for the hydro design and open it up to endless possibilities for the future of the capsule classes.

So Marc,

Can this proposal be modified in a manner that opens things up with regards to design, but addresses the concern that some have expressed with regards to a true tunnel boat design cometing with hydroplanes? Perhaps increasing the percentage for sponson length, but not 100%? I believe that if a boat design primarily utilized a turn fin and engine direction to affect a turn in competition that many of the concerns expressed previously would be alleviated.

BTW - I recall that a Canadian driver drove a 500 tunnel boat "back in the day" without any issues. If I recall, his name was Glenn Coates and his boat was green. I do not remember if he knelt or sat in the boat.

[ChrisH]

$50 Bet?

This subject and many more will be talked about by the commission and we will be taken under advisement with no change. Any takers?

David,

Why go halfway in between what UIM just changed and our current rule? Just open up the boats like we are with the motors. If we want spec classes we can race "Antique"

We can always propose to change it back....

Chris

[Guest]

Changes I would like to see

60% rule was to protect someone's turf and should have never have been passed. Real men "run what you brung" and don't ***** about it.

And while we are at it, scrap 1100 hydro and make 700 hydro open from 350 -700cc. There is your 2nd capsule class.

[nicf14]

125, 175, 250, 350, 500, and 700 hydro should all become "O" classes. No more APBA rules just UIM rules.
Chris,
Most of our representatives are to old and narrow mined to ever change!

[Guest]

Be Careful

125, 175, 250, 350, 500, and 700 hydro should all become "O" classes. No more APBA rules just UIM rules.
Chris,
Most of our representatives are to old and narrow mined to ever change!

Be careful what you wish for. If you think old and narrow mined is bad, add on foreign without any direct PRO Commission Representative. Oh Yea, that is like what I have living in South Carolina Region 14 – no vote – no Representative.

[bill van steenwyk]

Then Change The Representation

Quote: "The representation is too old to change"

Nic: YOU and the REST of the membership have the power to change whatever you don't like about the representation you are getting on the commission. As has been brought up time and time again on this and other forums only about 20-25% of the membership bothers to vote, maybe not you specifically, but the membership as a whole. Add to that the voting blocs that vote in their own interest like the Antique and OSY group and you have the situation that exists now and has for years. If you don't like the representation you now have, change it. If you feel you have no chance to make a difference with change in just one or two regions, then fight for change in the way the commission is made up. You and others of your generation have been around boat racing all your lives, and you know how the system works. You need to make it work for you, and if you don't make that effort then just complaining will not work. There has been some change in the commission over the last several years with new and younger members, but steps backward have also been taken, as some of the newer members elected in the recent past have become discouraged with "business as usual" and dropped out. As long as the same folks sit on the commission that you are complaining about, the situation will never change.

Perhaps the time has come for all of you that want change to become more pro-active (no pun intended) in the election of commissioners from other regions as well as your own. Whatever you do as long as the same representation sits on the commission, you are going to have the same result, just as Chris predicts.

As has been mentioned before, it takes money and time to attend the meetings. Younger members a lot of times have not been able to ac***ulate enough of either to contribute to commission duties, and make contributions that could benefit the sport. Perhaps now is the time to think of "public financing" for commisssion members with forward thinking ideas but a lack of funds to attend the National Meeting where difference could be made. In other words, each region would have a portion of their budget that would be used to send commission members to the national meeting. No one has all the answers, but as you stated, things are not going to change until the commission does. It is up to the membership, if unhappy with the present status quo, to make that happen.

[David Weaver]

Another Possibility

125, 175, 250, 350, 500, and 700 hydro should all become "O" classes. No more APBA rules just UIM rules.
Chris,
Most of our representatives are to old and narrow mined to ever change!

Another way to approach this, perhaps, is to say run 250 hydro and O-250 at the same event. It would kind of be like CSH and OSY400 racing on the same weekend. Just a thought.

[Kristi Ellison]

Keep calling me old and I won't take this one on like I planned too
You guys are having flash backs to the old days not that many old folks left on the Commission and 75% are USTS so stop insulting us and make the argument so those of us that are young and forward thinking will support you ya bone heads!

[Al Peffley]

Please Consider Voting Rules Changes

I have run OSY-400 in the past and CSH. I have never run the Antique classes, but believe they belong somewhere in APBA. I now am only running a "Modern" Pro class (250cc, and possibly 350cc again.) In the past I could only vote for changes that affected stock motors or alky motors if I ran them separately and was listed as a "Stock" and/or "Pro" driver member in APBA. This seems logical to me, but I don't understand why Pro drivers running stock gas motors in OSY and K-Pro can vote on alky hydro or runabout rule changes, since most of them can also vote on CSH or JSH changes in APBA.

My Proposal to the APBA/USTS Pro Commission: I would like to see the Pro membership community split into three voting groups for design & safety rule changes unique to the three obvious categories of the existing Pro classes - OSY/K-Pro Entry Level Category, Antique Classes, and Modern Pro Classes (125, 175, 250, 350, 500 & above cc's.) You can talk to the UIM folks, but I believe the O classes have separate voting rights and separate meetings on rule changes that they submit to the UIM administration for rule changes.

Runabouts and hydros in APBA have separate rules for design, why shouldn't the three operational categories of Pro boats? Why should anyone running a racing boat outside of the true Modern "alky" cc Pro classes have a vote on hydro design rule changes that do not affect them? Specify that the Entry Level and Antique Category hulls can retain the 60% hull sponson rule, if they desire, but let them vote separately because their future "growth potential" is not at stake, AND since they can also run in APBA stock classes (where Stock-to-Pro crossover is the norm, not the exception.) We don't get to vote on Stock rule changes unless we run Stock classes in APBA.

I would like to see Bill, Gary, Derek, and Marc and other US boat builders succeed at developing the next generation Pro hulls like the Europeans have accomplished. Limit the vote on the Modern Pro Category design rule changes and focus the passing of new operational rules on the Modern classes owner and driver community. The next issue I see coming may be in the future use of the adjustable-height tower that Rossi has developed -- where does the "parity disease" end? The UIM has introduced minimum weights for O hydro classes to help "equalize" the competition and reduce loss of control in tight corners and rough river race waters. They are still really fast because of significant hull DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS in Italy, Eastern Europe, and Sweden! They have very narrow 3-point hydroplane hulls with shallow sponsons and outer side hull sections for classes below 500cc. I overheard a Demmler team member say the new white capsule boat at the World's Cup in Florida was "...too unstable to drive safely..." (paraphrased in English) as it was set up for testing on Thursday and Friday.

I agree with Marc, but would like to see a "fair vote" without outsiders' influence (those who don't currently participate in the effected Modern Pro classes.) I personally don't see the OSY, K-Pro, or Antique classes having the opportunity for change that we need to promote more public interest and racer participation in the Modern Pro outboards. I will participate in clock or jetty start races at any race site of USTS or APBA sanctioned choice -- I just want to race next season in the Mostes, and have some fun doing it...

My three+ cents.

Al
R-25
250ccH