Perhaps UIM imposed a dimensional spec stating that no part of the motor or its attachments can extend beyond some datum; for example, the top/center of the transom.
Dieter was just trying to comply with the UIM db rule at that time. His later design was so quiet you could hear the carbs sucking air. They are still made by Konny for use in Europe.
You guys might be right that it was to deflect the noise down to dissapate it, but it was always my understanding that it was because of safety as Paul had said.
I've only been to three European race courses and two of them were single bouy turns. There may be twenty or more drivers hitting the first turn together and they will all be slowing down considerably to make the turn. Most of the boats I raced against were all laydown cabovers. They run great in rough water and with the drivers body above the deep sponsons they can scrub off speed quite quickly. So just imagine someone in a cabover not quite judging it right and diving off into a bunch of spray. Straight pipes of a boat in front are just about eye level with the boat charging up from behind. I'm sure it does a great deal to reduce db's and that was certainly the reason open megaphones were banned. But I think the initial rule for the bend was safety and noise reduction was a side benefit.
My new 1972 Square Block C had curved down stingers and Scott Smith told me at the time it was to make the motor quiet with the noise pointed down into the water. I had Zak cut 'em off and weld straight pipes on.
seems l remember somthing about safety (UIM).aiming down for projectiles escaping.(pieces of pistons,rings or spark plugs.l know l have launched all of these out the pipes!!
I'm going with the noise supression reason.
As a side note, the inside of Dieters dyno room was lined with different expansion chamber designs. It was also dark, wet and smelled of castor oil.
Had I known 1984 was going to be my peak year, I would have tried harder
I seem to remember remarking to Harry Zak about the turned down stingers when they first came out in I don't remember what year, but he said he had been told that it was done as the result of an accident in Europe somewhere when a trailing boat ran into the rear of another and the straight stingers acted as "cookie cutters" on someones body, and they sustained some serious injuries. I don't know any more specifics as that is all he seemed to know also, but supposedly after that accident, UIM acted very quickly to put in a rule having them bent down to eliminate the open end of the stinger acting as a punch on someones flesh, much as the PRO commission at the time in the US made the rule about enclosing the magnets on the Konig CD ignition after one of the Small brothers was injured at a race in Fl. when a flywheel disintergrated while the motor was dry fired on the beach. I don't know where Harry got his information, but he usually didn't say much about a situation unless he was positive about it. When I first saw them I thought the same as an earlier poster, must be to give some tail lift on the boat. Whether there was enough opposite reaction to really make that happen would be interesting to know. Anybody out there do any testing of that theory???, straight versus bent down???
Since the earliest pictures I have of expansion chambers show bent pipes rather than straight, I'm pretty certain it was a noise consideration.
Note that both of these motors are from 1961
Since 1925, about 150 different racing outboards have been made.
Herr Joachim DuCoffre would know. Who out there has an old UIM rulebook?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks