Douglas GM -- Skater 399v -- Ref thread "Is APBA Arachnophobic?"
 

News travels fast in this industry. The penalties imposed upon DMC and the Race Team have only created a sea of incoming calls to DMC as to what LLC Offshore hopes to accomplish.

Douglas Marine Corp does not know Duchess, nor is she the 'Secret Squirrel' of DMC. However, DMC would like to thank Duchess for asking well-thought-out, intelligent, and pertinent questions----which have yet to be appropriately and/or accurately answered. It would have been in the best interest of LLC Offshore had Andrew Corn not responded at all.

DMC considers safety issues paramount in Skater race AND pleasure boats. Nothing is perfect the first time out. Hundreds of man hours have been put into this project. Significant testing of the 399v Skater occurred at Lake X, and again in SRQ, with numerous setup combinations. It was apparent to DMC (and anyone else who saw the boat run in Key West) that the 399v required stabilization in order to correct significant safety concerns. Two additional rear strakes and 50+/- pounds were added to increase stability. The added weight slowed the 399v by 2-3 mph. The object of the game is to fine tune and create the best possible product, is it not?

When DMC determines that changes are required on Skaters, a phone conversation about those changes occurs with the appropriate party of the sanctioning body----and the conversation is followed up with required physical drawings. This is the way it has been handled in the past, and the way this incident was handled. The decision to add two strakes to the 399v was made a few days prior to the start of the 2003 race season.

With our credibility intact and our recollections quite clear on this particular incident----Pete did talk with Andrew Corn about our intentions to add two strakes. There was a clear understanding that the added strakes would be fine (in conjunction with DMC providing a drawing of changes). DMC provided the drawing. Andrew Corn did make the statement that everything was 'okay to go'.

We were stunned to receive LLC Offshore's certified letter, outlining the penalties and requirements imposed upon DMC----and to realize that we had been misled by 'okay to go'.

LLC Offshore has imposed a requirement upon DMC to return the 399v to its original state (as it was in Key West). Doing so, would be nothing less than negligent. And, removing the strakes would again increase the 399v's speed. All Skater 399v's will be fitted with the strakes as a safety improvement, including pleasure boat models.

We have recently spoken with another strong and well-respected competitor in the SuperVee class. His comments about the Skater 399v were: 1) it IS the same boat that it was in Key West 2) it is setup well 3) it is running faster than the rest of the field 4) apparently, the boat had to be slowed down to create parity with competitors.

If the world's fastest, one-mile runner was required to wear a 50 pound weight belt in order to compete----what message would be received? Presumably, other competitors would feel insulted at best, and the public would realize that the penalty was intended to create the parity.

Frankly, DMC and LLC Offshore have long been engaged in an ongoing battle about the payments required for homologation approvals. DMC understands and agrees with the need to approve homologations while charging a nominal fee to offset administrative costs (as is the case in any application process). It is DMC's opinion that the homologation fees set by LLC Offshore are both arbitrary and excessive.

LLC Offshore's requirement that DMC return the Skater 399v to it's Key West configuration would (including but not limited to):

1) compromise the safe operation of the Skater SuperV
2) restrict DMC's ability to freely operate its business due to restriction of trade
3) negatively impact DMC's business by jeopardizing Skater SuperV sales
4) damage the reputation of DMC and Skater by arbitrarily and unreasonably preventing participation in APBA Offshore events
5) damage the reputation of DMC and Skater by arbitrarily and unreasonably notifying current and future APBA members that "no future Skater SuperV's shall be eligible for competition in APBA Offshore events."
6) negatively impact sellers of used Skater SuperV's by restricting the ability to sell to buyers who want to compete in APBA Offshore events
7) negatively impact current owners of Skater SuperV's who want to compete in APBA Offshore events.

In addition to the configuration requirement, the following statements are quoted from LLC Offshore's certified letter written to DMC:

" 1. $7,500 fine

2. Temporary hold on all future homologations of any new SuperV models, pending the payment of above fines and written agreement to comply with all APBA Offshore technical rules, including the payment of all applicable homologation fees.

3. The failure of Douglas Skater to comply with the above penalties and conditions shall result in our notifying all current members and potential future members that no future Skater SuperV's shall be eligible for competition in APBA Offshore events."



In this instance, LLC Offshore's requirements accomplish nothing but the illusion of greater parity. This serves to discourage the creativity and ingenuity of competitors----rather than encourage competitors to rise to the challenge of producing products which create actual parity.

Offshore racing was once a fresh and enjoyable sport. Since the sport has changed from non-profit to for-profit, it has the aroma of decaying fish. It is sad and unforunate that our sport has been so negatively affected.

And the sage continues.



Christopher Mornes
General Manager
Douglas Marine Corp

Well said Chris, hope the V hull gets a chance, it has evolved in a huge shadow of the traditional "Skater" the general public is familiar with.

:D

Sounds like nothing less than corporate black mail. Pay the money and everything will be alright??:mad:

Mike, I think that he ment the 50 lbs. and strakes slowed it by 3 mph.Otto

Much better thread than the "Duchess" one. Here, we have DMC's official point of view, not an unauthorized third party's.

That being said, it seems to me that DMC has been running fast and loose on their paperwork for some time, and finally got their wrist slapped for it. By all accounts, Peter and the gang at DMC are pretty much racing purists, and it's easy to get caught up in the technical end of things, allowing the administrative issues to slip by. The way I see it, APBA wants DMC to run, but DMC has to play by the rules. For DMC to fall back on a "verbal" authorization is a little weak. Even if DMC did get a verbal authorization, they should have backed it up with a written note to APBA confirming the conversation. It's just good business practice, and it's way APBA insists on having everything in writing - so all this "he said/she said" silliness doesn't go on.

DMC should step up, pay up and play straight. DMC is a world-class company for which I (and many others) have emormous respect. Airing this whole thing on OSO has probably hurt their image more than the fine ever would. Duchess has done no one any favors by bringing this up, and all the acrimony over events in the past is just that - ancient history.

Let's go racing.

am i the only one that sees a trend here?

with all due respect, I think APBA is being a bit heavy handed here. APBA has built it's premier racing class on the back of DMC and DMC deserves a little respect... If it were me and Corn said OK, then I would have done exactly what DMC did...and if Corn required written documentation at the time of the change, he should have said so.

Mr. Alweiss,

Although I agree with C_Spray for the most part. Yor comments are rather brazen. I agree that at the very least a letter confirming the conversation and its outcome should have been sent. I also agree that you have rules and the reasoning behind having it in writing. So in conclusion, if Mr. Corn approved what DMC requested, some for of written confirmation should have been drafted. With regard to you creating a new businesss opportunity for Skater...PLEASE Mr. Alweiss. We are not uneducated robots drinking Kool-Aid here. Skater has been building boats for a LONG LONG time. Skater has also built Vee bottoms for others as well, and Fountain is not the only one. If Peter wanted to enter the Vee-Bottom arena he could have many times in the past. Just because the LLC has newly formed classes, that in and of itself did NOT create a new opportunity for Skater to all of a suden NOW build vees. If you want others to stay on topic, and I agree, I suggest you not make such ridiculous assertions and stray from the subject at hand. It certainly does not lend you any more creditbility, especially at a time when so many people's credibility in Offshore Racing are questioned.

cat, i was smiling becasue we got an official response.

now get some popcorn (no pun intended)

Too old did you get permission to change your Avatar from oso??

:) :)

Just imagine if every business deal / situation you did appeared on OSO (glass houses anybody?) - You wouldn't have time to do any work! And people wonder why our sport has not grown like other popular motorsports? These " so called" informitive posts are nothing but axe grinding jabs at APBA Offshore! By the way I consider Lance Henrichsen a good friend of mine and strakes , weight or a fine will not slow that boat down - so all you Skater fans quit worrying! BH

denied
 

Pete B:

No way I'll accept your request to change your avatar! Some days it's the only smile I get on here - haha - BH

Shane:

According to the latest point of view....all boat racing...... of any value....was invented in 1999.

T2x

I wish mine were, I couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

All else aside and with all due respect to all parties, I would consider altering a boat in any way, including weight and balance, running surfaces including strakes, etc. is no small undertaking. Actually, it sounds like quite a large undertaking including tooling, manufacture, testing and time...In my humble opinion, I would think that such an investment would not revolve around a frank conversation...I would insist on a written statement.

In my line of work, there is no change without written authorization and approval. It would only mean chaos and plane crashes...I would like to think the same would apply here.

Rules are rules are rules...
Okay, I'm done.

Baja,

Remember, the changes were/are made for safety and admittedly will slow the boat down. Would it not be more of a "level" playing field if the Skater went slower?

baja'
"It would only mean chaos and plane crashes"

remember this as well there certainly are more planes in the ocean, that boats in the sky, thats why your rule applies to planes" when tings go wrong there you cant shut the motors of and get a tow back to the dock.

BH
i wont be request a new avatar any time soon. :)

Good analogy or bad analogy; that's debatable...
But making significant chages without written authorization; I think we can all agree that' not a good thing. ;)

One has to see things in different views to appreciate things that are being said here.

For one, the past is the past. If the APBA was to provide rumors of the past violations, then they should have provided proof of past penalties for said violations, else it’s merely a smear to help facilitate their premises of this argument.

The basis of this argument is fairly simple:

In Key West, the Skater 399 V debuted, and by all accounts was written off as a non contender. Everyone from racers to potential customers did not hold the new boat in any regards as being good or competetitive or worthy of buying.

Skater has cured the handling problem which they openly admit to what they did; design one additional strake for the hull. Someone then added a single strake to each aft side of the hull, nothing more. (I’ve heard of teams removing strakes, but not adding them for greater speeds)

This was and is the first Skater V Bottom as I have read and they had to make a minor design change to modify a bad handling craft into a safe one.

Now the situation of the Skater 399 has been viewed differently. No longer is it a flop, as it had originally been seen to be, it has actually seen a bit of success in one race so far this season and all heck has broken out.

Does anyone actually expect a manufacture that has a substantial investment in their boat, not to mention a reputation, to not want to improve the boat itself and make it better? At what point and who should they have contacted for this permission? After all, a committee did not design the boat in the first place, nor did one cure its aliments.

Should they have left the boat alone and quite possibly never have made another one?

Who would this serve best?

Your missing the point. Nobody said anything about changing or not changing a design needs written permission from APBA
To RACE the boat is where the documentation of the changes comes in to play

No, the point is Skater states they had a "verbal agreement" with the APBA LLC Offshore on this exact issue.

If that is not worth anything, then that says more than you or I ever can.

Skater was not wrong to correct their boat, they were wrong to win in such a manner. Else there should have been a penalty levied after Daytona.

The rule book says there shall be no verbal agreements.They want documentation. Period
Are people here saying certain companies should be allowed to break the rule book, just 'cuz?
If a race committee wants to be respected, they cant let it play both ways.They've got to stick by their rule books.

Unless you are driving an MTI with Buzzi drives............

T2x

That implies that a written agreement is worth the paper it's written on.....as opposed to a basis for later legal action.

T2x

skater im glad you see the bull of the llc you and who you talked to see eye to eye on this subject full steam a head on your boat best of luck

<rolling eyes> Go figure. Someone is FINALLY forced to play by the rules...
 

And here come the vultures out of the woodwork...

Anyone else ever notice how you never see some names offer posts untill there is an opening for a cheap shot at APBA or a chance to stir chit with Mike Allweiss for no reason other than to piss everyone else off?

Obviously you guys are still bent about Reggie leaving APBA because he couldn't/didn't want to play by the rules. But that horse is long since been beat to death so now you want to take up a cause on behalf of Peter and the Spiderman team because they weren't allowed to do as they please and live by their own rules?
Skater is without a doubt one of the best boats on the water, and Todd & Lance are talented and skilled professionals. The time and the R&D that has gone in to the new V bottom is commendable, and the results are impressive. Unfortunately, they skipped parts of the same process that everyone else has had to follow, and are now being called on it.
The sad part is, they now have these yeahoos trying to make a bad situation worse.
If I was Peter,Todd & Lance, I think I'd be embarassed.

gordo ole boy...i don't think that your post is very fair...i for one have always been a supporter of llc and never take cheap shots at anyone...

i also think alot of mike a. for the fact that the answers questions here when he's under no obligation to do so. i think he tries to shed as much light on the current state of affairs as he legally can.

that is not to say i agree with him, but hey, who am i? as i indicated in my pm to miklos, i think the llc is alienating alot of builders out there...and i'm certainly no reggie fan by any stretch, but i don't recall seeing any evidence of him cheating, but then again there's no need to bring that out of the woodwork...

I also think that llc makes it incredibly difficult for smaller builders to compete in the factory classes---especially Factory 1. lastly, i don't think P class is a viable "training ground" for manufacturers. I always viewed it as a place for those small budget teams to "run what they brung".

point is, skater made changes to the v bottom for safety reasons and on the word of AC and they trusted that. now they're forced to pay fines, etc...now i've not heard andrew's side and i have alot of repsect for him, so i'm nt trying to indict him...

this whole issue underscores the need for things like this to be in writing, but to air it here and try to dilute the argument by talking about "past infractions" by DMC is just plain wrong...no matter who started the thread...and i stand by my earlier statement that if, in andrew told me it was okay to add the strakes, then i would add the strakes...paperwork to follow...

now back to our regularly scheduled programming :D :D

Sean,
I see your point.
I guess I could have been more clear about the few I was actually referring to, but rest assured you wasn't one of them. Offering an honest opinion is one thing, but the personal axe grinding/mud slinging gets old
Having said that, I will say that I respectfully disagree with your previous post. DMC has made quite a bit of money selling boats to various race teams over the years which have raced in various sanctioning bodys. They have used what they learned from those race boats to make a better/safer boat. Something everyone benifits from. I don't think APBA Offshore gained anything specifically from DMC, just as I don't think DMC has gained specifically from APBA offshore. In other words, nobody is riding on anybody elses coat tails here. They are each very successful on their own merits and should be recognized as such.
As for a trend? I do agree with you there, but probably in a different context. I see the trend as one of equal treatment, no matter how good your boat is, how successful your company is, how deep your pockets are or most importantly, what your last name is.

no probs...i do see your point...but we'll have to agree to disagree :) I think skater has made lot of money from racing, but that really isn't the argument here...I also think that there would be no super cat class if had not been for skater...

mike, i too have spoken with mr corn on a number of occasions. he certainly struck me as a straight shooter...and as i said, i certainly mean the man no ill will. :)

Hey, I heard recently that they received a 250 lbs penalty in addition to the other stuff. Why was this never brought up? Is the boat faster than the rest of the field? Anyone, anyone...

Becca,
I ask the same question on the old thread! With no response!
I was told once that weight was not used as a penalty,it was
only used as a tool for competitive equality! I don't clam to know
the answers or to what is going on here! to me it sounds like an
homologation issue between Skater and APBA. I personally know
Todd and Lance very well and consider them both to be extremely
competitive racers (there record speaks for them!) and men of great honor!! I also know that they are not happy with what is going on, on this board and on the street these guys just what to race and win! and leave the politics the the politicians!
Brian

Does anyone know the meaning of the word...... sanctimonius?

.......or the uses for Teflon?

The question is......If this boat had been produced by a major series sponsor..........or been campaigned by a shareholder ................. would any sanction have been levied?

If yes, than it's a legitimate action...as long as it is in keeping with previous actions... Is it?

If no....it's a random process based on arbitrary application of rules.

Remember, this is the same boat that was prevented from running against the Vortecs in last year's World Championships...with a 525 Mercruiser......sporting the original strakes.... and forced to run Super Vee......... Why?

T2x

P.S. The above questions are rhetorical....please spare me the "answers".

Flame me if this is a dumb question. I understand the spec engines,but I don't understand the hull scenario. This is Super Vee,right? Why have hull specs as long as it is a vee bottom?For hull specs in production run Factory 2. Should not Super Vee be just a vee bottom,run what ya brung as long as the engines and drives are legal? Why not run whatever you build as long as it's a vee? Or is this too simplistic?

Magicfloat,


Good point related to dimensions but might want to consider minimum weights to maintain some parity.

Fever Mike,

Are you referring to the "new"(ex-SVL) Super Vee or the "old"(now PV) Super Vee?

Kind of my point I guess. The name says it ,Super Vee, the ultimate, no place for the small manufacturers that don't want, or can't afford, to go there.Lots of other classes for them with good advertising benefits when they win ,F-1,F-2, Outlaw classes,etc. But if you call a class Super Vee it should be just that. If Skater moves a strake, so what? It's still a vee bottom boat.

Mike,guess i didn't look at the rules close enough. Thought it was spec engines, not spec hulls, my bad,sorry. Maybe the PX class is where some of the guys should go, looks pretty exciting if they can get more than 2 or 3 boats to play the high stakes class.

Hi guys
Theres been lots of chatter about classes, and engines etc for the past couple of weeks here and in the racing section, but I dont understand a few things.
First off...in my opnion, all LLC super V is anymore is F2 with hardtops. super V lite is F1 with hardtops. If there gonna have a spec engine, and now your saying a spec hull too, which I really dont understand...Why not just call them F1 and F2 and be done with it. Is it because SBI already does it?
Were do the Manuf of boats and engine builders get to experiment? How will the boats we buy everyday get better because of it. You say manuf will try to out spend each other...so what? Thats called R&D, and if they can afford it more power to em. If they cant they get left behind...thats called capitolism.
To force someone to have to run an engine or boat because they are a sponser sucks. If were your headed is everybody drive the same boat with the same engine, then youve lost out on innovation and improvement. Please dont tell me that the guys that can afford to race in supercat and superV dont have the money to experiment, cause if they dont they dont belong there. They need to be in F1 or 2. You keep saying over and over how hard it is to enforce the rules..If there were less rules wouldnt it be easier?
I also am of the opnion that racing F1 or 2 without a canopy is gettin nuts. Call me a pu$$y if you want, but any purpose built raceboat needs to have a lid.....period. The guys that want to race open cockpit can have the P classes. Does anyone think Nascar drivers are pu$$ys? cause they want the safest ride possible?
My suggestion for classes
Supercat.....Any hull up to 40' with any 500ci NA motor built by anybody who wants to. #6 drives
SuperV....same as above
SCL...up to 38' any hull with either VortecHP or 525hp spec motor #6 drives 2 engines
SVL...same as above 1 engine
F2...up to 36' with a lid.. homoed hull, vortec HP or 525hp. Any Bravo1 style drive
F1...up to 30' with a lid...same as above
The F classes should be the only ones that must homoed except with the lid. The guys that are in F1-2 now can get lids put on easy enough, you know someone will fill that gap and start sellin em.
Everybody else...P class
I love racing as much as the next guy..but if you dont go home alive at the end of the race..how much fun is that?
Dan

Dan

dan b and threst with that opinion. nascar has the same rules. spec motor, spec car. no inovation with nascar for 20 some years. oh wait. new car new design. they write a letteer and get it approved. if it seems to run to fast then they do what is neccasary to to make it run like everbody else.

guy's it been done for years and does not stifle anything.

Treadwell

skater rules
 

just a couple of things if skater finished last would we be having this conversation i think not and if apba needed written permission who ever told dmc they could go head should have told them to do so and i beleive dmc had permission to go ahead or they wouldint have and apba is a profit org which tends to get sticky just my 2 cents