Puder, it's not my descision to make. Although I agree with the concept.

I would prefer to say, no twin big blocks in P5. I think this would solve the same problem in a different way.

Let's not go overboard and start adding classes. Lets stick with the 5 we have.

Im going to post this to all you guys. I guess we should be happy with the P5 change, its a start in the right direction for this year.Last year we run with SBI and did 4 ocean or gulf races in thier S.Div. in P4,and I can say that with the water condions on any race if Sound of Thunder from the N.Div had been thier we could just as easy have stayed home.Vixen was set up for 80mph and i think the speed she ever averagd was 60 mph.I have a 302 Formula we got for polker runs because of my two small grand kids, and with two stock 502s it would run rings around Vixen in 4ft seas.Thats all, maybe they will work on P4 next year.

did i miss something? i understood a 28 lenth on twin. no limit on singles. did i interpet it wrong?

Maybe I did,I dont remember any p5 singles over 28 so figured that was for both. Mel Team Vixen

there was a couple of 29 warlock that raced p5 but it works for me to limited it to 28 foot period.

I for one am glad to see this change, it makes for a more even field in P5. Come on OPA get on board.

Baja Clean forgot about them 29 warlocks,hard to tell the differance when your looking at them on the course.They must mean just twins at 28ft or Pump It would be out with his 29 warlock.Had to change name due to the confusion with Brien Hollis new F1 team Joker Racing boat,was starting to get his E mails. Mel Team Vixen

I assume that the APBA will measure the boats the same way they measure the Factory 1 and Factory 2 classes. If this is the case, then the 29 Warlock is a 28' boat.
While I agree with the new rule change for P5, I'm not sure I would agree with the same rule for P4. My reasoning is, I realize there is some serious racing in the P classes, BUT, I also see the Performance classes as "feeder" classes for people who own boats that may not be competitive in the pro classes &/or classes that give new teams a chance to get their feet wet, (so to speak), before they spend the money on a full blown race boat. This being the case, please keep in mind that there are a lot of recreational twin engine boats that top out in the mid 70's that may want to try their luck. Is it fair to eliminate these guys, (or girls)?
Don't throw tomatoes yet, I'm just offering another point of view to the discussion...

I think that the "P" class (I hate that term) has been a victim of its own success. With A and B class disolved, this leaves the only choice for someone to race who does not have "spec" equipment. Therefor, some simple changes are needed to help this growth continue and to minimize disputes. I think the lenght limit was a positive and neccessary first step to bring parity in the P5 class.
Is a length limit in P4 Neccessary? I dont know? Any suggestions?
Bob G.

Robert,
I also dont like the term 'P'Class; it is not desciptive of what these classes are all about and not at all marketable.Gordo makes an excellent point that these clases are a feeder system to the Pro Classes so the rules need to be loose enough to attract as many new participants as possible.If these classes are properly regulated there is potential for big fleets!I also feel strongly that these classes should be renamed the Sportsman Classes(A-E);to follow the format of other motorsports sanctioning bodies like NHRA,IHRA & CORR and to futher diffentiate them from the Pro Classes.Does anyone know if Baja is still sponsoring these classes which is the reason for the "Outlaw" Performance name?This just my opinion...any thoughts?