CSH 3/4 inch height rule

[Bill Huson]

Testing ???

Testing ???? What is this testing ?????

Yeah, what's this testing? Is that when you fire up the engine in the pits to make sure it stills runs?

[Dave M]

Yup

Yeah, what's this testing? Is that when you fire up the engine in the pits to make sure it stills runs?

You certainly don't get much testing at a race site before race day begins......

[L. Allen]

For me testing new props is FUN FUN FUN!
JMO.

[ram95]

This sounds like a bunch of liberals designing the welfare system. Trying to help the 'new' guy from burning up her/his engine because it's too high up. C'mon!!! If the new person doesn't check around to see what other racers are running AND WHY... then tough. Of course, if other 'racers' try to screw the new-guy/gal (got to be gender sensitive you know ) then shame on them. Screw these arbitrary rules. If the engine you own is a POS that's YOUR tough luck. Propose a modification to it (to your model motor), but don't expect everyone else to have to disconnect a spark plug so you can keep up.
Alex
Mad Russian Racing
12A

[Ron Hill]

Wasn't Stirring The Pot...

Bottom Line: Most of the time at our races, Ernie Dawe does nine tenths of the work on the kneeldown boats....When Ernie passes on....Well, anyway, my son has raced A Hydro about four times, and LOVES IT....MORE THAN SST 45...But Ernie has done all the work so, we can race, and as I tell Ernie it is TOO MUCH WORK...**** IT...

We have a hard time fielding any boats at a race...Tito lives 40 miles from Parker and he doens't come...Ok, we are "LAID BACK" in California...But getting people, like me, to know how high a 20 should be or where a C Hydro should be...Hell, people just want to have fun at the races...

Man, KISS seems to me as a good idea..(KISS: Keep it simple stupid)...

Do you know how many restrictor plates I've changed in my life??? Well, I ani't changing anymore...Too much work...

Maybe the steering doesn't get loose with a 1/4 inch, unless it is already loose and and extra quarter makes it REALLY hard to drive...

I don't know: Seems 3/4 for 20 and C Hydro would make sense...Actually, 1 3/8 would make more sense...Just like an A Hydro!

[Al Peffley]

Ryan said:

"Ron, I understand that you are just trying to stir things up a bit, but please be reasonable. 1/4 inch difference at the transom is not going to make you have to change your steering. The difference is a shim stick, loosen two bolts to pull the restrictor, maybe a couple of clicks of mixture and presto chango you have it done. Thie only thing this changed for people running the 302 for 20 is to loosen the tiedown rope and the clamps and add/remove a shim. The rest of the process is the same."

How long have you been racing Ryan??? An eighth of an inch is a BIG change on my motor, with my current props, and the transom angle/kick-out setup I use with my two Yamato motors. My CSH/OSY hydro rides and steers much different on a long course with a 1/8-inch height change, let alone the speed and cooling change impacts. This is why GP road racing motorcycles no longer use air cooling and switched to closed cycle coolant systems -- forced air needs an added system due to extreme operating conditions. It would help if we were'nt using 1930's style, forced water cooling methods for racing outboard motors in 2007. Have you checked your Yamato water inlet for factory metal burrs, millfoil plant deposits, and general FOD blockage lately? My pro motor Yamato foot had factory metal burrs in the inlet passage, big time. I sucked millfoil plants into my foot at the Newport race and stuck a piston in the back stretch with too much height -- cut my transom down last year to drop a 1/16 of an inch (made all of the difference I needed, without someone making a rule to make me do it.)

The APBA BoD will pass the rule because there are very few APBA BoD people who race these motors regularly and truly understand the rediculousness of this "parity" rule change (where are you Wart when we need you to help bring reasoning and logic into the discussion of this one-sided, poor-judgement call?) Parts availability on Yamatos suck big time for the last three years (shortage of replacement pistons, spark plugs, coils, etc.), and this rule change will not solve those on-going motor performance problems!

What do you people at the head of APBA leadership think about us out here in the racing community -- maybe that every racer has an infinite amount of money to buy new boats and props when you make rule changes that aren't based on true safety issues or maybe some racer cheating on the existing rules? The sad part is that there is NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE of CERTIFIED TESTING RECORDS brought forward by Ed Hearn and two or three others who voted on this rule behind closed doors to support this motor height rule change. The change is sponsored by a biased minority of boat racers who don't even normally (or maybe have never...) run CSH with a mixed field of 302's and 102's. How can many of you older APBA racers go along with two or three people in APBA being allowed to wield this kind of rule-making power without do***ented testing results or real substantiation data?

If you have regularly run CSH and voted for this rule -- shame on you!-- Learn to take your poor judgement on high motor setups and stuck pistons like a grown adult, and quit whining about it! Blame the manufacturer for poor parts service and parts shortages, don't make other racers pay (virtually) for new boat designs and props because motors stick.

I can't understand why the current APBA leadership is driving existing and new people away from "stock" outboard racing, since you seem to accept every mod class motor change that comes along for 3 to 4 boats in a heat (at least that's normally the quantity out here on the "left" coast.) It's the old, noisy mod stuff that people complain about at most of our existing race sites on local lakes that is causing us heat time "parity" problems...
CSH and OSY are/were our biggest classes on the west coast. You're killing our morale and initiative to sustain stock boat racing here!

Al Peffley
(Former APBA SO Driver & Owner...)

[mike ross]

Al you need to come to a national meeting and particapate. The rule for the CSH to be set at 3/4 was not proposed by Ed Hearn. It was proposed be John Runne a current CSH driver. It was voted in by the commision. And the original DSH 1 inch rule was brought in due to all the Mercury DSH drivers trying to get our current DSH put into the mod division in which there would have been no Tahatsu at all. Ed decided to keep the mercury drivers settled be setting up a parity committe so we could change the rules for the Tahatsu anytime during the season. No other class has this rule and if they want changes they wait till next year after its voted yes to change. So these little steps are the way we keep evryone happy. Remember a good chunk of the DSH are in the EAST where they have never seen a Tahatsu yet. You guys out West are going to kill your own class by not working with this new system. Bad mouthing Ed Hearn who has made this thing happen is sure not going to help. Go back to your rule book and see what the rules are to bring in a new motor. The Tahatsu has not complied at all with this rule. Ed stepped on the current DSH Mercury drivers to make this happen and belive me he has taken the heat from his former commision as well as a bunch of apba memebers. If the current Tahatsu DSH drivers can,t roll with this concept then what Ed did isn't working and we need to go back to the rule book and follow it. It may kill the class . Eds way may not be liked but it has gotten you way farther than the way the rule book reads. Stop *****ing and go run it because like another said we just might be at 0 by nationals . This is the only class that has this opertunity to change as the season goes . Mike

[Ron Hill]

So, Let Me Understand...

OSY 400 has no transom height?

20 SS Hydro will be 3/4" transom height?

And C Stock Hydro will be 1" transom height?


And I wondered how they were inspecting last year???

[22W]

Ok Al, why don't you re-read what I wrote. I was talking about the fact that you don't need to change the length of your steering cables when going up or down 1/4" on the transom. Maybe if you run a 45 degree transom, but I seriously doubt that. I said nothing about handling or my thinking this rule is good or bad. And to answer your question, this will be my 19th year of racing. I do believe that makes me at least a little qualified, don't you think?

[drbyrne55]

2004 Tuck Saftey issue???

I am wondering how many racers will be tucking just a touch more with the CSH3/4" rule????

the quote below came from 2004 regarding "tucking" and its possible outcomes.....

so i ask ..... where is the real safety issue ...running at 1/2" in CSH or over tucking at the new rule of 3/4"....

Maybe John Runne could reply ( or even Ryan ).... by the way what engine do the Runnes use "most" often in CSH a 302 or 102????


2004 quote ......

My observations from this year, mostly in mid-west so don't feel slighted P. Gleason. Fast guys included Hauenstein, Palmquist, DeFebo, Tate, Keylard. I know those guys run the set ups being discussed and all have flipped this year in essentially single boat crashes except for Tate. Running kicked in 1 1/4 inches or more takes a unique boat to work with the transom lift the kicked-in prop/gearcase produces. That's all well and good most of the time but occasionally something screws up which usually allows the bow to drop and then things get exciting. Obviously this is more likely to happen on windy/rough conditions, particularly the downwind direction. I know Tate will change to kick out and go down in those conditions which is probably why he stays upright.

We run a boat very similar to Tate's and Palmquist but a bit heavier in front. I've limited our set-ups to 5/8- 3/4 inch in and we can run in any condition, maybe not as fast but certainly safely.

[Al Peffley]

Wrong Thread Mike

This thread is about the CSH rule, not the DSH Tohatsu discussion Mike. The root of this whole problem is still about "politics" and how the APBA rule making process is "broken" when it comes to voting rights of the SO membership at large (basically, none as far as I can tell). I am not a region chairman of any committee, so I seriously doubt my voice would have merit in an open discussion with a biased crowd from your area of the US racing circuit. Remember, both Yamato and Tohatsu import dealers are located on the west coast, not the east coast. Hotrod and Merc proponents are on the east coast (might be something extra that adds to this parity problem, huh?)

As far as D Stock goes, a totally NEW stock class motor comes along, and (in my view) the established boat racing culture on the "right" coast makes predjudiced rule changes against the manufacturer and racers because they don't trust either the source of the motor or the racers who see a chance for SOR to be revived in D class. What are Ed, Steve & Runne going to do to me -- excommunicate me from APBA (LOL). As far as Runne goes he has the reverse of the east coast's D Stock "established culture" mindset, or this topic of parity in CSH would never have gone this far (see the popular book out called "Who Switched My Cheese" that addresses changes in the world and how to handle them in organizations.) Like one person said -- ..."it's MY freaking motor..." If I'm not causing accidents, quit trying to protect me from my own setup stupidity and machinery investment failures! I don't need your friends' unsolicited "Help" on motor overheating issues...

You won't get my money this year to pass these unsolicited type of rules with a minority of people -- a few people at an APBA national meeting proposing and passing these them for lame reasons. You still have not addressed the topic of THIS parity thread...

Cheers,
Al Peffley

[ryan_4z]

drbyrne55,

We didn't change our tuck at all. We didn't change our props. We tested at 3/4", and that is the only thing we changed. We run both a 102 and a 302 every weekend.

The reason the 3/4" height rule was on the adgenda was because I was approached by numerous drivers that have told me that they are burning up engines trying to compete at 1/2". This rule was proposed not for safety, not for parity, but simply to try and level the playing field, and give newer drivers a chance to compete with the more experienced drivers without destroying their motors. Even very experienced drivers are cooking their motors looking for that last little bit of speed needed to win, and it is about winning. It was suggested to me by some very experienced drivers "why don't we just drop the **** things down, and go out and have some fun." That is the arguement, I don't expect everybody to agree with it, especially the top dogs in the class. But this rule will have the same effect on everybody, therefore creating a more level playing field, where newer and less experienced people can be competitive.-John Runne

[sponsonhead]

Changing Classes?

Hi Al,

Great to see you involved in the discusion on the CSH heights, and I appreciate your insights.

Since you have up until this point pretty much run OSY exclusively and no CSH, does this mean we can expect to see you running CSH in the future?

Just askin'.....no offense intended, just curious.

Thanks, and have a good one,

R-19

[seanp3]

drbyrne55,

We didn't change our tuck at all. We didn't change our props. We tested at 3/4", and that is the only thing we changed. We run both a 102 and a 302 every weekend.

The reason the 3/4" height rule was on the adgenda was because I was approached by numerous drivers that have told me that they are burning up engines trying to compete at 1/2". This rule was proposed not for safety, not for parity, but simply to try and level the playing field, and give newer drivers a chance to compete with the more experienced drivers without destroying their motors. Even very experienced drivers are cooking their motors looking for that last little bit of speed needed to win, and it is about winning. It was suggested to me by some very experienced drivers "why don't we just drop the **** things down, and go out and have some fun." That is the arguement, I don't expect everybody to agree with it, especially the top dogs in the class. But this rule will have the same effect on everybody, therefore creating a more level playing field, where newer and less experienced people can be competitive.-John Runne

Thanks John. This is refreshing for a change. No beating around the bush. Tell it like it is. I think many would not have gotten their briefs in a knot head it been spelled out like this from the beginning.

[drbyrne55]

John,
Thanks for the reply ....

I am a new guy ..... and posted for the new guy last fall.... against a change.... I'll live with it.

Even though I have almost zero race experience, I did spend last fall creating 5 new props with 1/2 or less data (CSH/OSY)... a 1/4 does make a difference to these props on my boat with my 302.

I'll bet you are going to see guys tucking more at 3/4" than they did at 1/2"..... and creating a more dangerous situation.... that's really my point.

I will be tucking more, changing bottom design, air trap design and a few other things... in my, now specific, CSH.

The point, however, remains ... is the 3/4" rule going to create more wrecks/injuries from over tucking when in fact the rule is about people burning engines? If I torch my engine that's my issue....

I guess I'm missing the logic here.

Bye the way my brother ran our set-up over 70mph at Bakersfield Nationals on Thursday ..but by Sunday ...race day ... our rookie status kept us from making adjustments in the rough water.... so experience does count which we lacked.

Hope you both make it to Moses Lake .... it would be fun for the rookies ... I'll supply the beer.

drbyrne55,

We didn't change our tuck at all. We didn't change our props. We tested at 3/4", and that is the only thing we changed. We run both a 102 and a 302 every weekend.

The reason the 3/4" height rule was on the adgenda was because I was approached by numerous drivers that have told me that they are burning up engines trying to compete at 1/2". This rule was proposed not for safety, not for parity, but simply to try and level the playing field, and give newer drivers a chance to compete with the more experienced drivers without destroying their motors. Even very experienced drivers are cooking their motors looking for that last little bit of speed needed to win, and it is about winning. It was suggested to me by some very experienced drivers "why don't we just drop the **** things down, and go out and have some fun." That is the arguement, I don't expect everybody to agree with it, especially the top dogs in the class. But this rule will have the same effect on everybody, therefore creating a more level playing field, where newer and less experienced people can be competitive.-John Runne