Thanks for your input Ted.

Bertel,
you can try to spin all you want, but Ted Zoli is one of the most highly respected businessmen and offshore racer in the history of our sport. If Ted says it, take it to the bank. You however, should take it as gospel as well.

Thanks Gordo but please don't post any more messages my mother sends you!!

Ted

Ted: I never insinuated that anybody got rich on the Vortec deal. The numbers just weren't there. I was the first one to comment that Alweiss was nuts for wanting APBA/CRE enter the race engine business by mandating a purpose-built Vortec for F1 & F2 (it never happened.) 30 to 40 engines just ain't worth it.

You are absolutely right with your comment about nobody getting rich by organizing boat races. That's why OSS lets its owner/members democratically decide how they spend their money.

Not sure I want to know all the back room "smoke and politics" that created the Vortec engine program, I do know that one senior GMC manager in charge got his walking papers from GM when the engine could not be delivered as advertised for a GM high performance crate engine program GM created and other off color things I guess.
I do now know as well as many in the high performance community, that stock 496HO's when equipped with our kits and headers produce almost identical horsepower and torque figures as the Merc HP525 blue motors. This option of another motor package to compete one on one with the Mercury "blue motor" would probably result in a lot more teams competing in those appropriate classes with their 496 motors. These don't have to be called Vortec to benefit GM, just create an equal engine called the 496HO-525 and open the choice and lower the cost to teams wanting to use this package. I know we would participate as sponsors and both Innovation and Tyler Crockett could certify and seal these engine packages since they are both infinitly familar with this motor. Just some food for thought. Add more stock, thicken the broth and build the racing programs? Just a thought.

By the way, the teams and officials in OSS are great people doing a wonderful service for the marine high performance industry and providing great sport and competition! Keep on Rac'in!

Regards,
Ray @ Raylar

Why don't you just call it a Raylar 525.

Since there was a vote can I get a yes and no count and who voted what on the decision to keep my #6ssm dry-sump drives out? Was it a 100% no vote to rule it out?

I do not understand why this thread was put here it was relating to all the groups. OSS, SBI and OPA ect....

pat W

Shifter: If you want your drives to be accepted, you really, really need to read and understand the rules. That would be the start.

I really, really read the rules that is how I know there is 10 rules against my company.

I do not know what rule is keeping my dry-sump #6ssm drives from competing in the SCL class.

Thy are still #6's they are dry-sump, they are legal in my book. There are other converted dry-sump #6 drives (TNT, Coabella) are they allowed?

Look at rule #14. Exclusivity.
Does that apply to the racers and not the organization? If you give an exclusive why are you paying for the product? If you are paying for the product who is getting payed for the exclusive?

pat W

Please proceed to "Approved Outdrives." It will tell you what is legal and what is not. The Mercury Raccin #6 SSM is.

Then please proceed to "Drive Modifications." It will tell you that changes to the #6 are not allowed.


If you need rule clarifications, then the request should be directed to the OSS Technical Chairman, Bob Teague. This is obvioulsy not an effective forum for these questions.

I have talked to Bob.

If the no mods are true it should be the same for Teague bravos, Imco bravos, ect..... When I make a bravo drive can we race it?

It is like saying that you cannot blueprint (lab finish) a prop, Just because a big company sold it to you does not mean it is a good product.

Peppers had my #6 drives.
They had to buy new merc #6 drives. Why?
That is 60 grand thrown out the window.

I was not allowed to state my case to the OSS owners so I am doing it here.

I see the rules but there is not a good explination for why they are there.

Cost? no
Safety? no
Availability? no
Service? no

If there is not a good reason the rules should change.

pat W