Endurance Racing, the future??

[Mike Lloyd]

Originally Posted by Taz

No one want to listen to someones point of view! or is racing set up to the organisers boats ENTERING?

You haven't been reading my posts Taz and the rest of your post is not worthy of you and a bit shallow.

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by Taz

No one want to listen to someones point of view! or is racing set up to the organisers boats ENTERING?

I don't see how it effects you. You don't race anyway, you just tell everyone how quick you 'would' have been. Come out racing, and have a voice.

No one seems to understand the green issue, it's not about reducing emissions, it's about keeping people happy, the difficult people who lobby against our sport.

The rules still need some tweeking, hopefully we'll get them a little better for most (but not all), however, adding more classes is absolutely out of the question, an 'open unlimited' class is absolutely out of the question and encouraging all the old stinkers is absolutely out of the question.

the rules need (like it or not) to encourage the engine manufacturers most likely to 'help', to step up and be counted (re: sponsorship, support etc) the day someone gets stirling, mercury, chief, or Eikhert to do so, I'll eat my hat.

Don't forget that for all your moaning, without the help recieved from FPT (both financial, and publicty), RB08 WOULD NOT have happened! They've already cashed in at shows etc from their success in RB08, and hopefully others will want some of that cake in the races of the future..

modern, common rail diesels are efficient & clean, as are the modern OBs.

Another thing to mention (for you Steve H) is that the classes are now divided. the top 3 are pure race, everything below is supposed to be production stuff, racing production stuff requires driving within the limits of the kit to finish, it's part of it (the old, 'to finish first, first you have to finish' saying) we want to encourage the lower classes to be affordable and competitive.
Maybe non epa should be allowed, I don't think people would use them for long anyway, not in endurance racing, they'll exclude themselves pretty quickly.

Lastly, please don't 'burn' the people trying to get this thing to work, it's not productive.

JF

[Mikko Oikari]

Anyone knows the meaning of this in the Production classes?

H 1.75 x 1 m2
30’ – 50’
L/l ‹ 3.75

[steve h]

john,running the motors allowed in m5 is like you having to run alpha drives,std x hights ,you wouldnt do it.
as for affordable you could by 3 or 4 xrs,2.5 promaxes for cost of one ect,verado,175 opti,bravo xr drive etc and they would still be on back of boat at end of season,
as for reliability ask the b28 boys from rb08 same motors all way round,wouldnt say your motors were that reliable,or mine at 40k for 3.
the only class this is effecting is lower class which as you say is to be affordable as possible and bring in new people,good luck

[Jon Fuller]

You can't buy XR2's new, you haven't been able to for years! (I don't know how long it's been out of production for, you tell me) you're proposing a scrapheap challenge class.

Are the 225 2.5 promax still available? These rules are attempting to set things for the next 5 years, how many old XR2's will be around then?

And let's face it, how many teams actually chose those to use old style motors for the '08 season's endurance? and that was when the choice was there. One to the best of my knowledge, and if they hadn't been allowed, they'd have found an alternative, not given up. So, would we have lost entries by banning XR2's? ...maybe, but I doubt if it would have been many, if at all.

If RB had been as rough as one would have expected, I doubt Roy & Toby would have finished many legs, Jamie struggled to keep his saddles together even in the flat conditions we had with his XS's. OB's just seem to be fragile to me, period.

As I said, it aint perfect, and we're still working on it. Your constructive critisism is very welcome, and will hopefully help get us to a point where most are happy(ish) but cheap digs from those who don't race, organise, or even understand the problem, is not welcome at all.

Our Steyr's had front pulleys/harmonic dampers from what turned out to be a batch of 40 with a manufacturing fault, that's life and definitely an unexpected failure that we couldn't have foreseen.

You're right, I wouldn't choose Alpha drives, at least not if the competition were allowed Bravos, but that's the point, if everyone had Alpha's, we'de all be in the same boat. You don't hear the Honda crowd complaining that their engines and hulls are shite, because they all have to put up with that shite, so are equally handicaped.

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by Vildarib

Anyone knows the meaning of this in the Production classes?

H 1.75 x 1 m2
30’ – 50’
L/l ‹ 3.75

Mikko, it refers to the larger cruiser (cabin) class. minimum headroom in cabin, 1.75 metres, minimum UIM length, 30 feet, length to beam ratio must not exceed 3.75:1 (no long thin race boats running in cruiser class, ie, Blue FPT!! to have the Buzzi 55 'Blue FPT' run against Targa 42 'Buro' was a farse. Buzzi is the first to point this out.

So, if you have a 10 metre boat, it must have a beam of at least 3.75 metres to qualify for Production Cruiser. This is simply to distinguish between high performance racing type boats, and genuine production cruisers.

[Tony Davis]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

So, if you have a 10 metre boat, it must have a beam of at least 3.75 metres to qualify for Production Cruiser. This is simply to distinguish between high performance racing type boats, and genuine production cruisers.

Am I reading the rules wrong, or perhaps I'm a bit daft, but who makes a boat with those proportions?

A S/S Hawk 43, which would be my interpretation of a typical production cruiser, wouldnt be allowed, as it has a length of 12.45m, and a beam of only 3.63m.

And the Supermarine that sank in the RB08, as it had a loa of 10.97, but only has a beam of 3.73.

How does that work then?

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by Tony Davis

Am I reading the rules wrong, or perhaps I'm a bit daft, but who makes a boat with those proportions?

A S/S Hawk 43, which would be my interpretation of a typical production cruiser, wouldnt be allowed, as it has a length of 12.45m, and a beam of only 3.63m.

And the Supermarine that sank in the RB08, as it had a loa of 10.97, but only has a beam of 3.73.

How does that work then?

Have you quoted length as UIM measurement? try that. And remember, at the most ridiculous end of the scale, a Fountain 27 probably only measures <23' by UIM system. then re-do the math.

I'm not claiming this to be perfect & polished, but there needs to be a way of distinguishing between boats types. Maybe the figure could be tweeked, but only a little.

[Tony Davis]

Aha, never thought of that!

[Adam]

Maybe a length / beam ratio? as a fairly significant factor in distinguishing craft.

[Johnny Rocket]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

I don't see how it effects you. You don't race anyway, you just tell everyone how quick you 'would' have been. Come out racing, and have a voice.

That's a bit harsh. Not everyone's got a sugar daddy!

[mike1]

Im wondering in what class I can run my fORMULA 272 with 350 mag,( 5.7 liters) , 2500 kg,

or I must replace the engines for 5.0 liters or add some 1500 kg!?

(the rest of the rules are not avalible yet? what kind of licence do I need a i,m a dutch driver?

thanks a lot and keep on the good work!

mike

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rocket

That's a bit harsh. Not everyone's got a sugar daddy!

You don't need a sugar daddy to help, or understand.

However, to critisise those trying to get it to work, you need some crudentials, even if they're just offering to help.

[Johnny Rocket]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

you need some crudentials

No shortage of those round here!

[Jon Fuller]

So, if the 'epa' bit for 2 cycle OB's were dropped,

The minimum length for M1 were reduced from 40' to 37',

and the maximum engine capacity were increased from 10 litres, to 11 litres for M4, is this enough of a shift?

With respect for the Formula 272 question, we need to know the length, as measured using the UIM method before we can see where it might fit.

I would personally have liked to have seen M3 have a 13 litre max, instead of 14, and think that M4 should have a slightly higher capacity for petrol engines (maybe 11.5 litre) but it's not just me who decides.

There's mounting pressure not to exclude single engines. I think that for the singular races, such as CTC, maybe that's ok, but multi leg races could get really messy if there were continual breakdowns. The logistics of getting people home could be a killer.

Maybe singles with auxilliary engines, like we had in RB08 would be a compromise, albeit an unpopular one.

The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is, making rules that are both fair, and pleasing to everyone is virtually impossible.

[motorvator]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is, making rules that are both fair, and pleasing to everyone is virtually impossible.

Jon never a truer word spoken.

To my eyes the problem is many fold in that you are effectively trying to start from scratch with a non existant fleet i.e. rebirth of powerboat racing in Britain with zero time to allow the rules to develop naturally.

To exclude existing potential runners is to see a potentially reduced fleet, which is not what your aim is.

A dramatic shift from rules that were used back in the 80's and 90's excludes many classic raceboats that can be put to use quite cost effectively and allow the fleet to develop.

Exclusion of non epa when many raceboats already have them fitted is a problem and the enviro brigade should accept this and welcome a statement that non epa will be dropped by say 2012 or such allowing development to take place be it manufacturer driven or user.

Single engines as you say are a logistical nightmare on extended distance runs unless sufficient support craft can be enticed to cover the eventualities and even then with no specific course I am not sure how you cover it. Having said that it is no more of a problem as dealing with a craft going over / down.

At the moment it seems that both of my craft (Revenger and XPS34) are effectively excluded unless I wait a year or two for the 20 year rule to come in on the XPS. (Although I will have to have a measure as it seems right at the limit of 3.75 ratio)

Is it worth revisiting the old rules and attempting to incorporate the old with the new to allow these type of craft to compete even if they are not included in results.

None of the above meant as a criticism in any way, I certainly wouldn't want to be in your shoes for this one

[Mike Lloyd]

When we initially did the RB08 rules we started from scratch as there were NO rules for Offshore at that time. We then brought them up to date as best we could to 2007. We have now taken those rules and brought them even further up to date with better knowledge of ALL thats available engine wise on the market place right now.

I for one would like to know why your two boats don't fit in our new rules Motorvator. Whats the problem?

[motorvator]

Originally Posted by OldMan

When we initially did the RB08 rules we started from scratch as there were NO rules for Offshore at that time. We then brought them up to date as best we could to 2007. We have now taken those rules and brought them even further up to date with better knowledge of ALL thats available engine wise on the market place right now.

I for one would like to know why your two boats don't fit in our new rules Motorvator. Whats the problem?

Mike, as I said certainly don't take it as criticism as that's not how it's meant at all. I for one am right behind yourself and Jon for what you are doing.

The Revenger firstly if we exclude single engine is out on that count. Secondly, it as you know measures in the order of 25ft, the extra length coming from the bustles which obviously don't add to the measure, so short of re-engineing down to 6.5 litre and dropping into m5 she's not in class. Shame as 25ft Revengers with big blocks used to be raced by some

The XPS (and I stand to be corrected when I actually measure her) I believe is 10.48 / 2.78 sending her just over the ratio. I will check though.

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by motorvator

The XPS (and I stand to be corrected when I actually measure her) I believe is 10.48 / 2.78 sending her just over the ratio. I will check though.

If the LOA of the XPS34 is 10.48 metres, I would bet my bottom dollar that it would end up <10 metres using the UIM method, this gives a ratio of better than 3.6:1, so it's in.

I've a gut feeling that the single engine issue could end up with them being allowed for now (along with non epa OBs) for say another 3 years, after which time, you have to conform tothe new rules.

You also have to remember that we're trying to establish rules for international use for all Marathon racing, and that what ends up running localy (UK) could easily be more friendly to the older existing craft/engine setups. However, you simply cannot set up rules for international racing, for use over the coming years, based on a load of old pleasure boats from one particular country, to please 'a few' people.

[Matt]

FWIW, I agree with that. "Local/national" racing, on a budget, in a BWYB style is fine - and should be supported/allowed on a case by case basis. (e.g. CTC)

But for an international series, if ya wanna play with the big boys, then be a big boy! We have pretty good coastal cover if the worst happens, but who can say the same about every country - and losing yer single engine, in the rough, trying to get a soaking donkey engine to start that's not been used for the last 6 months and is damp - is a recipe for disaster, or as you put it, a killer.

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

You also have to remember that we're trying to establish rules for international use for all Marathon racing, and that what ends up running localy (UK) could easily be more friendly to the older existing craft/engine setups. However, you simply cannot set up rules for international racing, for use over the coming years, based on a load of old pleasure boats from one particular country, to please 'a few' people.