ASH/AXSH/FAH 1/2-inch tuck rule discussion

[Big Don]

[QUOTE=race4kaos
Now your rule change will allow someone to run kicked in 13/16" and even HIGHER than last year... (58mph?). I had to come down almost 3/16" last year when keeping the 1" tuck and measuring to the split line instead of the back of the propshaft. Now you can go back up.[/QUOTE]

Kevin, maybe i'm a little slow but how do you figure someone can run 13/16" kicked in when the rule is 1/2"? The difference between the propshaft location and the planning surface, as measured at the aft end of the propshaft, and foremost end of the gear case and the planning surface, as measured at the split line of the gear case, shall not exceed 1/2".

[race4kaos]

Don...

it's ok to be slow...
at least your team isn't slow on the course.

1/2" tuck measured over the 11" gearcase is equal to 13/16" tuck over the 18" measured on a pecker-checker... which is what most everyone uses when stating there set-up. it's just math...
[18 x 0.5 / 11 = 0.818 ~ 13/16+]

i'd say that will make over 1/2 the guys in the ASH finals from the Nationals change their set-ups. but it's still a lot of tuck. the boat, driver, & conditions will still have plenty of opportunity to crash.

glad i sold my A...

[473M]

Ok i have placed the new tuck rule into my CAD system and here are the results.
the gear case is 11.55 in long to meet the inspection requirments so if you take this length and add 18 in to this which is the length that the bottom of a ASH is required to be flat for. if you take the measurement at this point you can have 1.278 in of tuck which is still a large amout more then what Kevin said he is running. So this will only make a diferance on the guy that are running the extream tuck set ups.

[Big Don]

Kevin, understand how you came to that number.

I guess they didn't limit it enough. Stay tune...maybe it will change again.

[17W]

Change.......

Kevin, understand how you came to that number.

I guess they didn't limit it enough. Stay tune...maybe it will change again.

If you guys keep providing CAD Dimensions & Mathmatical equations somebody is going to pull a rabbit out of their hat. Then all of us will say where in the world did that decision come from......

[ryan_4z]

Kevin, understand how you came to that number.

I guess they didn't limit it enough. Stay tune...maybe it will change again.

I recommended to my dad, who was on the committee that made the rule, that the measurement be 3/8". That would alow about 9/16-5/8" of tuck. I felt that this amount of restriction was needed to take the advantage out of the tuck. Like Kevin said, 13/16" is still a lot of tuck. There is no doubt though that the 1/2" measurement is better than the way it was before.

[Haüenstein]

All because MAH didn't see the cross wake in the straight-a-way and someone caught it on tape. ; )

Well played, K-Fed. : ) I'm just thankful we have impact-absorbant engine cowlings.


Did you know that, under this new rule, if you measure kickout from the center of the aft end of the propshaft to a point 12 feet in front of your boat, you can tuck under an incredible 11.55 inches?

mikey.

[Big Don]

Set up the A hydro and measured the tuck last night and it came to 4.756”.

I measured from the end of the prop shaft to where the lift starts on the bottom. Figure the bottom is flat so it’s all the same. So it’s where the lift starts that is important.

[propnuts]

Safety and morons

We just ran with the new tuck setup and our boat is now a blowover waiting to happen. This the SORC has done this in the name of safety, thanks guys. I need to get this off my chest:

1) Why am I penalized because somebody else is too stupid to figure out how to make a boat go in a straight line without crashing? If someone is that dumb, why does it become the SORC's problem and my problem?

2) These kind of things should be self-regulating, in other words if you want to win boat races, in my experience you shouldn't crash. If you loose enough races by crashing do you figure out how to fix that, or do you whine "safety" to the SORC? I know how I've handled that situation in the past.

3) I now have 2 options a) change and adapt to this stupid rule b) quit or c) whine to the SORC and have them mandate a minimum tuck rule to prevent blowovers. I'll choose option A because I'm a racer, not a quitter, and I don't change rules to suit myself.

To all that I have offended by this post, oh well, it's the way I feel. And don't bother telling me if I don't like the way things are I should get on the SORC, I've already done it. Tony

[ricochet112]

We had rules in place for this already

APBA General Safety Rule #6, page SR-2: The Referee shall prohibit use of any equipment he deems unfit for service.

Rule #12, page SR-2: If requested, it is the responsibility of the driver or owner to submit his equipment for safety inspection. ArialRedIf, in the judgement of the Inspector or Referee, a boat is unseaworthy, unsafe or unmanageable, he shall refuse to allow the boat to participate in the race. The Referee, at his discretion, may require any flipped boat or boat involved in any accident to be reinspected before entering another heat of racing.


That says it all right there. We have (and had ) rules in place for unsafe set ups.
Why does the 2-3% of people running, and crashing, in "A" make everyone else change?????
This is turning into an inspecting nightmare and I feel will hurt the racing membership in the long run.
I do feel we need safety rrequirments to keep racers from operating unsafe equipment, but we already have rules in place for the few who couldn't ( can't ) drive their extreme set ups.

[Steve Johnson]

Sorc Rule Making

I'll get back to thread in depth later
If the mandates were to be voted on by the Racing members.
Very few of these STINKERS would pass the sniff test. I can fool a committee some of the time but I can't fool all the people all the time.

Hear that..... the winds of change
Steve

[csh2z]

The commission is well aware that many experienced drivers have the talent to run an extreme tuck set-up. The problem is, when new people enter the class (assuming we want new people) they may not be able to safely ( within reason) compete. The reason you've gone to this set-up is so you can win, it's faster. New or younger drivers, who are attracted to this class will not be able to compete on your level until they can handle this set-up. Don't we want new people to be competitive & safe? Should we design the class for a handfull of current drivers, or look toward the future and try to make our sport relatively safe? Should we wait until someone gets badly hurt or killed? Do you remember the seventies and early eighties when a large number of drivers got hurt trying to compete driving unsafe set-ups "jacked to the moon" as we used to say? Have you ever run over somebody because HE was out of control? Since transom height restrictions our sport has been much much safer and it has made competition even better. We need to continue this trend. These rules are not meant to punish anybody but to ensure a safer and more competive future.
John Runne 2-Z

[MarkTate]

John,

Sorry to say it but a frist year driver (15 years of age) can run a tuck set up and win in ASH. Not only win, but be safe and the fastest ASH at the Nats. As Andrew Tate was at the Nats. in NY and it was the frist time the boat was ever raced in competittion!!
This talk about being unsafe has gone way to far. Mike Holenitein Boat was change after he crashed. So was it the boat or the set up? It was the boat!!!
This has been one of the biggest issues over the last two years and it should have never been one, but Mr. Ed Hearn had to under mine his commisstion to get what he wonted and now all we have is a can of worms.
I am not one to get on this chate room and *****, But this topic needs to die!!

Mark Tate

[csh2z]

Mark,
I'm guessing that you and I will never agree on this issue. That's not a problem, I'm sure there are plenty of things we do agree on. I know that if you thought there was any additional risk with running this set-up, you would not let your boys run it. I also believe you would put safety above winning as I'd hope all of us do. See you at Franklin?
John 2-Z

[reed28n]

Tuck rule

John John John, I think we need to look at the whole picture. The new guy has to go to the new guy class that APBA crammed, I mean gifted us. AXS.

The problem is not the rule or the class. Everyone is looking for the next best thing. The problem is that all of the equipment is NOT the same. You can't take a set up of someone elses boat and be sure it will work on your boat or with your prop. It needs to be tested. The height rules have been great for the sport. How far above the bottom of the boat should we be running our prop shaft anyway??? (BMH) I heard about the Mike H video and I wish we had a few clips from some of the races we have been to. Should we outlaw runs at the clock because a 40 year veteran blows over making a timing run? or look his boat all over or change the C Stock hydro Class? I think not.

Everybody lean in real close... props and boats all react differently to these set ups. The same way some props on 102's and 20's don't pump water no matter how low you have them.

At some point we have to trust drivers and drivers parents have enough sense to regulate themselves a little.

Guys have designed the boat to run the tuck. Put the 4" lift Hemp boat on the shelf or on the rocker and pull out the B-Zoat gentle 2" long break bottom run parrellel and kick evrybody's butt.

I hope you can all appreciate the degree of sarcasom that was intended here.

Beer in hand, boat on trailer.

Scott
Oh yeah, has anyone ever noticed the degree of tuck an inboard might be guilty of if it had a gearcase. Now that propshaft angle is dangerous eh?