any marathon changes

alice · 01-12-2011, 04:32 PM

i heard there was a possible rule change going on to class a in marathon ,is there any others we should know about ?

Captain Chaos · 01-12-2011, 04:42 PM

they'll not tell you until the person trying to race a non-complying boat has kicked up enough fuss.

then they'll adjust them to exclude someone else.

Cookee · 01-12-2011, 04:53 PM

Inboard supercharger equivalence has changed to 1.4 I think. It will also be harder to get a licence despite protests from everybody - existing licence holders won't have to worry but newcomers will find it hard.

All of the proposed regulation changes have been adopted but not published yet - we just have to wait!!!!!!!

alice · 01-12-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

they'll not tell you until the person trying to race a non-complying boat has kicked up enough fuss.

then they'll adjust them to exclude someone else.

you just may be write,

billy no boat · 01-12-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookee

Inboard supercharger equivalence has changed to 1.4 I think. It will also be harder to get a licence despite protests from everybody - existing licence holders won't have to worry but newcomers will find it hard.

Nothing like making it difficult for newcomers to kill a sport!

alice · 01-12-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookee

Inboard supercharger equivalence has changed to 1.4 I think. It will also be harder to get a licence despite protests from everybody - existing licence holders won't have to worry but newcomers will find it hard.

All of the proposed regulation changes have been adopted but not published yet - we just have to wait!!!!!!!

thanks cookee,its a need to know basis i reckon

Tony Davis · 01-12-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookee

Inboard supercharger equivalence has changed to 1.4 I think.

So the "cast in stone" for 5 years didn't quite happen, wonder whose had that rule changed?

alice · 01-12-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Davis

So the "cast in stone" for 5 years didn't quite happen, wonder whose had that rule changed?

just out of interest,where 1350s not legal for class a but now are with the change

Cookee · 02-12-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alice

just out of interest,where 1350s not legal for class a but now are with the change

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there!

I did make a suggestion that the outboards should come into line as the Verado's end up in class C although I believe they are better off in Class D - I assume as no-one that matters wants to happen it was ignored!

Mike Bontoft · 02-12-2011, 09:45 AM

I think the change to 1.4 is a good one. Even the older 1050hp mercs could not be run in A with the 1.6 penalty. It took a special build to come in at 510 cu in each. With Embassy in 2010 the motors were destroked (3.9") large bore(4.560) motors, 509 cubes. The 1050s would have been a far easier/better choice.

Matt · 02-12-2011, 12:43 PM

Are they GM Blocks? Isn't that as big a bore as you can reliabilty go on a GM block?

On my bulldog I took it to 4.50, partially because it was easier to get pistons made, partially because it keeps the bore wall thicker and therefore stiffer, and finally it gives me a couple more goes if it ever requires them. I did consider going all the way to 4.56 just to make it a 572, but felt that there'll be adequate torque as is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Bontoft

With Embassy in 2010 the motors were destroked (3.9") large bore(4.560) motors, 509 cubes.

Mike Bontoft · 02-12-2011, 07:57 PM

They were Dart blocks. A lot of engine builders use the 4.560. The engines breath a lot better with the larger bore. I will be back on building the Kiekhaefers soon and these are the blocks I will be using, bored to 4.5. Standard height blocks with 4.0 cranks. I prefer not to use manifold spacers and the injection distributor drives on the Kiekhaefers is for 454s. Hence the block height. They will really spin up nice.

alice · 02-12-2011, 09:38 PM

[QUOTE=Cookee;212830]I think you might have hit the nail on the head there!

must be someones got some pull and maybe into some 1350s for a class. its not only fabio that likes the rules to suit

Jon Fuller · 02-12-2011, 11:00 PM

When the rules were set as they were, it wasn't to stop motors such as the 1000sc's, 1075's etc, it was to keep the brakes on for the bigger stuff available to those can afford them, the maintainance, and the fuel. ie, the larger Mercs at the time 1200's, Sterlings (up to 1500's), and now the reliable production Merc 1350's and the like. Unfortunately it meant some of the other stuff, that would have been ok power wise, fell because of the restrictions needed to stop the bigger power, (and hugely expensive) big stuff.

Setting rules that will be fair, practical, suit all, and be easily policeable is not easy. The intention was to produce rules that didn't encourage, or indeed allow cheque book racing, at least not any more than need be. There's always someone who has a good reason why they think they should be allowed an advantage (though most seem to try to convince everyone their need for that bit extra is not for advantage of course).

"We should be allowed bigger, more powerfull engines because......."

"We should be allowed a lower minimum weight because....."

"We should be allowed to run a smaller, shorter sprint boat in class because....."

It makes rulemaking a thankless, unenjoyable and usually pointless (as they get changed to suit the more influential members of the racing community anyway) task. Not one I'll be involved with again.

alice · 03-12-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

When the rules were set as they were, it wasn't to stop motors such as the 1000sc's, 1075's etc, it was to keep the brakes on for the bigger stuff available to those can afford them, the maintainance, and the fuel. ie, the larger Mercs at the time 1200's, Sterlings (up to 1500's), and now the reliable production Merc 1350's and the like. Unfortunately it meant some of the other stuff, that would have been ok power wise, fell because of the restrictions needed to stop the bigger power, (and hugely expensive) big stuff.

Setting rules that will be fair, practical, suit all, and be easily policeable is not easy. The intention was to produce rules that didn't encourage, or indeed allow cheque book racing, at least not any more than need be. But, there's always someone who has a good reason why they think they should be allowed an advantage (though most seem to try to convince everyone their need for that bit extra is not for advantage of course).

"We should be allowed bigger, more powerfull engines because......."

"We should be allowed a lower minimum weight because....."

"We should be allowed to run a smaller, shorter sprint boat in class because....."

It makes rulemaking a thankless, unenjoyable and usually pointless (as they get changed to suit the more influential members of the racing community anyway) task. Not one I'll be involved with again.

wheres the like button

Martin The Talker · 05-12-2011, 05:41 PM

Through the grapevine, I beleve new rules for Marathon Races OVER 500 miles in length are being considered by UIM.
These are, I beleve, called "Ultra" Marathon Rules, &I think are being intoruced to cover the "Extra Risks" involved with RB & C-MC type races.
One aspect I think involves the number of "Sea Survival" classified persons on-board.

Scand · 06-12-2011, 09:17 AM

Does the rumers say anything about when the new rules will be published/come into effect?

Cookee · 06-12-2011, 09:36 AM

I have asked the RYA and all they will say is wait until the UIM print them - no guess as to how long that will take! The newsletter from the UIM for December is Here!

Mike Lloyd · 07-12-2011, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin The Talker

Through the grapevine, I beleve new rules for Marathon Races OVER 500 miles in length are being considered by UIM.
These are, I beleve, called "Ultra" Marathon Rules, &I think are being intoruced to cover the "Extra Risks" involved with RB & C-MC type races.
One aspect I think involves the number of "Sea Survival" classified persons on-board.

News to me! Where did that rumour come from and who is instigating this? Is it the RYA or the UIM and if it is the UIM who? It would be nice if someone for once discussed this with me first as plans are well advanced for CMC2013 and what about RB12? Why do people insist in fiddling with rules is just beyond me. They managed to get to Monte-Carlo in 1972 without all this rubbish.
ML
.

Cookee · 07-12-2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lloyd

News to me! Where did that rumour come from and who is instigating this? Is it the RYA or the UIM and if it is the UIM who? It would be nice if someone for once discussed this with me first as plans are well advanced for CMC2013 and what about RB12? Why do people insist in fiddling with rules is just beyond me. They managed to get to Monte-Carlo in 1972 without all this rubbish.
ML
.

The proposals have been out for quite a while now - I believe it will be much harder for new crews to get licences as well.