Fast Fred's OMC Mod 50 secrets Thread #2

[formeone]

well i raced aof this summer,,, since all the se hydros almost are over this side of mountains,,,, apba wants alot of money to initial join,,, and for me the apba races are more than 4.5 hours away,,,, if there was tough comp for me there i would go but the guys here are very very fast,,,,, one guy went to the nats last summer and was winning the heat i guess until the dreaded wiseco skirt broke as they all do eventually and blew a hole in the motor....that and it was first summer here for me moveing from florida ,,, to find work and try andget back on my feet soo again the economy,,, and a decent job.....

[Tim Kurcz]

It should be no surprise that Mod engines are continuing to develop; that is the very purpose behind the Modified Division. This is especially true for FE/850; the only class that offers something remotely close to "bore and stroke" development opportunity.

As with other Mod classes, these engines must conform to specific rules as approved by the Mod technical comittee and voted upon by the drivers - a legal process designed to make sure all invested in the class have their say, and that the rules apply equally.

We've heard recent complaints about the FE/850 class going too fast, but there is no history of accidents. If a move is made to slow the class down just because an accident may occur, then what changes should be made to classes with a demonstrated accident history?

As for the 100MPH threshold, you'll find the 500CC PRO capsule rule was created because lap speeds exceeded 100 - something the FE/850 will never do on gasoline and oil. Also, it's well known some FE's were going over 100MPH back in the 80's - so why has this become an issue now?

The only logical answer is the price of racing. For the same reason the Tohatsu triple was disallowed in D-Mod, most drivers don't want to invest in a new engine if their current equipment is competitive. This is an understandable sentiment, except that the racing world is not static.

Indeed; boats, gearcases, propellers, and yes - even engines improve over time with research and development. Believe it or not, the objective is to actually go faster, to gain an edge on your competition. This core thinking applies to every racing sport.

Winning has been and always will be the prime objective of every development effort. There isn't a single racer among you that would turn down the opportunity to go faster legally - especially if it cost little or nothing. But that's not the real world.

My suggestion is to stop these non-productive "what if" arguments, work within the rules, invest time and money where it counts, and go enjoy racing.

[Jeff Akers]

I agree 100% with the above post.

[Phil McDaniel]

Always has been the plan with me.---------Smart man Tim.

[formeone]

yeeee haaaawwww i agree well put , tim,,,,,

[850cc racer]

Well Said Tim!

its the same all around the world even over here in my class.

850

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

The overiding reason (at least the one given publicly) for the capsule rule in PRO starting with 1100 Hydro and then phasing in 700 and 500 over a three year period, was a death that occurred during testing at the DePue Nationals the summer prior the the APBA national meeting where the rule was voted in by the PRO Commission. The driver killed was Gerry Drake, a really nice guy and tough competitor in the big hydro classes. Gerry was a VERY experienced driver for quite a few years, but he really liked to run a boat loose. I had a conversation with him at a USTS race in NY just shortly before DePue where I remarked to him he was really running on the edge of disaster insofar as the boat off the water during testing. He was a pretty fearless guy and he just laughed and said "you got to run loose if you want to run fast". That thought has stayed with me for a long time now when ever someone mentions his name and that accident.

I attended the PRO Commission meeting where the capsule rule was voted in and shortly before the commission voted and during the discussion period about the rule, I asked the question "has anyone really thought this thru as to what the repercussions will be insofar as how it will affect the classes participant wise because of the amount of money involved to phase out the old boats and phase in the new. I was basically told to "sit down and shut up, this is a done deal". In addition I heard from many privy to the inner working of that commission that there were other reasons for this rule, none of which there is any good reason to go into at this late date.

My point was that to have a successful boat racing class it takes more than just the top three or four competitors in the class. It takes all the "also rans" also, that make up the rest of the field to have a successful class in boat racing, no matter the category. At that time to go from a non-capsuled boat to a capsuled boat was in the 12-15K range and I don't think it has gotten any cheaper over the years. That is a lot of money to ask someone to spend if the reason they race is other than to finish in the top 3 or 4, and my point was that it seemed a good way to kill several classes, or at least really work a hardship on the guys that wanted to run them, by making it prohibitively expensive to do so, WHEN NOTHING ELSE WAS EVER TRIED FIRST FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE PARTICIPANTS.

Possibly anything that would have been tried would not have worked, like the short lived "Sprint 500 Class" or whatever it was called, but the point is a drastic measure was taken without much feedback from all the participants in the affected classes that it would be hard to argue did not effectively render those classes mere shadows of their former selves. Anyone who attended the National and World Championship races in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's when the economy and difficulty of securing races sites started to affect the number of races and consequently the number of racers, would be hard pressed to argue with that fact.

As one who has been severely injured several time in a race boat, I am a great believer in making racing as safe as possible. That is one reason I argued so strongly in favor of the "radio rule" a few years ago, another rule that had to do with "safety" as the reason for passage, but in reality was anything but. That being said, any type racing, especially Boat Racing, and especially boat racing at the speeds PRO boats travel today, is inherently a dangerous sport. Most folks (there are always a few who don't meet the rule of good sense) realize this and try to exercise caution when participating. Evidently if the accident rate in SE/FE is as has been stated, very low, then that must be the case with those classes. But you can't take all the risk from boat racing, as it would not be "racing" anymore, so there is a fine line to walk in being as safe as possible and not having any racing at all.

That is why I cringed somewhat reading some of the posts on this thread, as it looks to me as though you may be headed towards a capsule rule whether you want it or not if you keep up this kind of a discussion on an open forum. It would seem to me you would all be better served to have the interested parties get together privately and come up with a way to satisfy some of the problems you are starting to get into with this class, rather than continue on a public forum. If not you may have it done for you in a way that satisfies no one and leaves a lot of folks without their existing toys to play with.

[Mark75H]

So the consensus is that the class should go on as is until it is gone.


Personally I'd rather see the brilliant innovation and cool tricks continue a bit longer than the current trend suggests.

[seaward]

It should be no surprise that Mod engines are continuing to develop; that is the very purpose behind the Modified Division. This is especially true for FE/850; the only class that offers something remotely close to "bore and stroke" development opportunity.

As with other Mod classes, these engines must conform to specific rules as approved by the Mod technical comittee and voted upon by the drivers - a legal process designed to make sure all invested in the class have their say, and that the rules apply equally.

We've heard recent complaints about the FE/850 class going too fast, but there is no history of accidents. If a move is made to slow the class down just because an accident may occur, then what changes should be made to classes with a demonstrated accident history?

As for the 100MPH threshold, you'll find the 500CC PRO capsule rule was created because lap speeds exceeded 100 - something the FE/850 will never do on gasoline and oil. Also, it's well known some FE's were going over 100MPH back in the 80's - so why has this become an issue now?

The only logical answer is the price of racing. For the same reason the Tohatsu triple was disallowed in D-Mod, most drivers don't want to invest in a new engine if their current equipment is competitive. This is an understandable sentiment, except that the racing world is not static.

Indeed; boats, gearcases, propellers, and yes - even engines improve over time with research and development. Believe it or not, the objective is to actually go faster, to gain an edge on your competition. This core thinking applies to every racing sport.

Winning has been and always will be the prime objective of every development effort. There isn't a single racer among you that would turn down the opportunity to go faster legally - especially if it cost little or nothing. But that's not the real world.

My suggestion is to stop these non-productive "what if" arguments, work within the rules, invest time and money where it counts, and go enjoy racing.

I have been building SE engines for the NBRA racing program using rules that state reed cages and carbs. must be conventionally located. Also material may not be added to engine to increase such size. If this is incorrect info Please let me know so I can increase airflow before season starts.
Hal

[OUTBOARDER]

I have been building SE engines for the NBRA racing program using rules that state reed cages and carbs. must be conventionally located. Also material may not be added to engine to increase such size. If this is incorrect info Please let me know so I can increase airflow before season starts.
Hal

Where are the NBRA rules and specs posted?
Is there a inspection sheet with dims available
to all? Is a template used to check?

Does "CONVENTIONALLY LOCATED" mean in the original "STOCK LOCATION" ?
If you think it does what are the original dimensions with a tolerance please

Thanks
Anthony
38-E