Rules 2006
08-30-2005, 12:27 PM
#12
www.weismann.net
Gold MemberThread Starter
Re: Rules 2006
We have had good dialog with John C about the future products we are working on right now.
The problem I have is when we put all this effort into a product and it is excluded for no good reason besides a small kickback.
Over the last 10 years the rules have been in favor of one manufacturer and the sport has been decaying slowly.
We are working on solutions to the problems that are occuring with the current drive types as well as new products.
If you look at the solution of the 1.50 ratio. I do not think that is the correct solution. If Spiderman is that good it is because of the ratio and prop combination that makes it handle so well. If you bump the ratio the other way the boat will not handle as well as it did. I realize that there is not a good way to have parity but racing is not a sport that everyone is a winner.
The idea behind racing has always been to improve safety and reliability the products for the everyday consumer and to show who is the best.
pat W
The problem I have is when we put all this effort into a product and it is excluded for no good reason besides a small kickback.
Over the last 10 years the rules have been in favor of one manufacturer and the sport has been decaying slowly.
We are working on solutions to the problems that are occuring with the current drive types as well as new products.
If you look at the solution of the 1.50 ratio. I do not think that is the correct solution. If Spiderman is that good it is because of the ratio and prop combination that makes it handle so well. If you bump the ratio the other way the boat will not handle as well as it did. I realize that there is not a good way to have parity but racing is not a sport that everyone is a winner.
The idea behind racing has always been to improve safety and reliability the products for the everyday consumer and to show who is the best.
pat W
08-30-2005, 04:54 PM
#13
arneson-industries.com
Offshoreonly Advertiser
Re: Rules 2006
Racing is and I’m afraid will continue to be controlled by a single manufacturer. This, regardless of how people want to express it is the way it is in one of the sanctioning bodies.
Parity, this seems to be a hot word, but it really kills competition among manufacturers.
If someone has produced the best combination (hull and power package) the manufacturer is not rewarded with more sales as one would think as the other teams get to penalize the good ones till they are no longer any faster.
I know the reasoning is that the organizations want closer racing, but the manufacturer’s design newer boats that are continuously faster and faster as a means of increasing their product life cycles, which makes them more $ which insures they will be around in the future. The parity rules do not really allow the manufacturers to reap the benefits of their new designs unless they are only marginally faster.
A new boat company really cannot compete in this model even if it has a better design as the others seem to penalize it to maintain parity. This of course removes any incentive of the general public to purchase that particular manufacturers product if they do not see that it is clearly a better product.
It would seem that the laws of natural selection do not apply in racing. Why purchase a great boat and power package when you can have the officials slow it down to match your boats current speeds.
Cost seem to be ignored in all of this as well as if you check the pricing, a 525/#6 package cost more than a Super Cat engine/#6 package. Lack of competition in the 525 engine series has allowed the prices to swell to un-believable levels especially when you consider the economies of scale the 525 enjoys over the Super Cat engines would mean that it should be reversed.
The racers as well as the general public deserve an alterative of choices.
Parity, this seems to be a hot word, but it really kills competition among manufacturers.
If someone has produced the best combination (hull and power package) the manufacturer is not rewarded with more sales as one would think as the other teams get to penalize the good ones till they are no longer any faster.
I know the reasoning is that the organizations want closer racing, but the manufacturer’s design newer boats that are continuously faster and faster as a means of increasing their product life cycles, which makes them more $ which insures they will be around in the future. The parity rules do not really allow the manufacturers to reap the benefits of their new designs unless they are only marginally faster.
A new boat company really cannot compete in this model even if it has a better design as the others seem to penalize it to maintain parity. This of course removes any incentive of the general public to purchase that particular manufacturers product if they do not see that it is clearly a better product.
It would seem that the laws of natural selection do not apply in racing. Why purchase a great boat and power package when you can have the officials slow it down to match your boats current speeds.
Cost seem to be ignored in all of this as well as if you check the pricing, a 525/#6 package cost more than a Super Cat engine/#6 package. Lack of competition in the 525 engine series has allowed the prices to swell to un-believable levels especially when you consider the economies of scale the 525 enjoys over the Super Cat engines would mean that it should be reversed.
The racers as well as the general public deserve an alterative of choices.
08-31-2005, 02:37 PM
#14
Registered
Re: Rules 2006
Originally Posted by Rik
Racing is and I’m afraid will continue to be controlled by a single manufacturer. This, regardless of how people want to express it is the way it is in one of the sanctioning bodies.
Parity, this seems to be a hot word, but it really kills competition among manufacturers.
If someone has produced the best combination (hull and power package) the manufacturer is not rewarded with more sales as one would think as the other teams get to penalize the good ones till they are no longer any faster.
I know the reasoning is that the organizations want closer racing, but the manufacturer’s design newer boats that are continuously faster and faster as a means of increasing their product life cycles, which makes them more $ which insures they will be around in the future. The parity rules do not really allow the manufacturers to reap the benefits of their new designs unless they are only marginally faster.
A new boat company really cannot compete in this model even if it has a better design as the others seem to penalize it to maintain parity. This of course removes any incentive of the general public to purchase that particular manufacturers product if they do not see that it is clearly a better product.
It would seem that the laws of natural selection do not apply in racing. Why purchase a great boat and power package when you can have the officials slow it down to match your boats current speeds.
Cost seem to be ignored in all of this as well as if you check the pricing, a 525/#6 package cost more than a Super Cat engine/#6 package. Lack of competition in the 525 engine series has allowed the prices to swell to un-believable levels especially when you consider the economies of scale the 525 enjoys over the Super Cat engines would mean that it should be reversed.
The racers as well as the general public deserve an alterative of choices.
Parity, this seems to be a hot word, but it really kills competition among manufacturers.
If someone has produced the best combination (hull and power package) the manufacturer is not rewarded with more sales as one would think as the other teams get to penalize the good ones till they are no longer any faster.
I know the reasoning is that the organizations want closer racing, but the manufacturer’s design newer boats that are continuously faster and faster as a means of increasing their product life cycles, which makes them more $ which insures they will be around in the future. The parity rules do not really allow the manufacturers to reap the benefits of their new designs unless they are only marginally faster.
A new boat company really cannot compete in this model even if it has a better design as the others seem to penalize it to maintain parity. This of course removes any incentive of the general public to purchase that particular manufacturers product if they do not see that it is clearly a better product.
It would seem that the laws of natural selection do not apply in racing. Why purchase a great boat and power package when you can have the officials slow it down to match your boats current speeds.
Cost seem to be ignored in all of this as well as if you check the pricing, a 525/#6 package cost more than a Super Cat engine/#6 package. Lack of competition in the 525 engine series has allowed the prices to swell to un-believable levels especially when you consider the economies of scale the 525 enjoys over the Super Cat engines would mean that it should be reversed.
The racers as well as the general public deserve an alterative of choices.
08-31-2005, 04:36 PM
#15
Racer
Racer
Re: Rules 2006
I would say that MTI has come out as a "NEW boat company" and done quiet well. There SuperCat has made Skater go back to the drawing boards for a new race boat. MTI is enjoying greats sucess as a pleasure boat builder too , I would think do into some part from there sucess on the racecourse. I do agree that the parity rules do limit the technology into boat racing. Companies like Arneson, Weismann, Sterling, Herring, and more have improved racing in many ways over the years, but it all comes at a cost which hurts some racers. Like a few years ago when Zero Defect was running the only set of trannies in the US or now when they are guys that would give there first born for the right set of Herrings. At some point the spending and speeds have to be limited. Remember what happened to "OPEN CLASS" we can't let this grow into that. There is nothing wrong with slowing the boats back down as long as all the boats run the same. I wouldn't care if they put 200's back on our "STOCK" boats as long as we all the same thing. Personally I wish I was a 10th as smart as some of the engineers in our business. But obviously I'm not , as I make stickers for a living. My point if there is one is yes the technology is great but the only place it is going is into record boats, PX, superboats, and pleasureboats. In all forms of racing there are limits including, F1, Cart, IRL, Nascar, BUSCH, etc. We all love NEW tecnology but it cost money and when one guy can afford it and the next guy can't well that pushes racers away, which the sport can't afford to do. Sorry for rambling, I hope this made some sense.
08-31-2005, 06:07 PM
#16
Re: Rules 2006
From what I"ve heard and from racers in OSS that I have spoke to the SCL class will be running #6"s next year. It also lookis like the SV class will follow.
SBI will have no changes in their rule book next year (2006) in the SCL,SV,or SVL classes as far as drives.Bravo, and #6 both will be an option,,,
SBI will have no changes in their rule book next year (2006) in the SCL,SV,or SVL classes as far as drives.Bravo, and #6 both will be an option,,,
08-31-2005, 07:29 PM
#17
Registered
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cortez,Fl
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Rules 2006
Frankie,
Congratulations on the new boat.I think if you are building a new SCL than it must have #6's.If you have a boat that has bravo's,I think is grandfathered in.I believe the new rule is for parity and so the boats last the whole race.
Wil
Congratulations on the new boat.I think if you are building a new SCL than it must have #6's.If you have a boat that has bravo's,I think is grandfathered in.I believe the new rule is for parity and so the boats last the whole race.
Wil
08-31-2005, 09:18 PM
#18
Re: Rules 2006
Willie,
Thanks the new boat is running well and I think with alittle time we should be able to dial it in better.
Yes you are correct that is the way it was explained to me...
Thanks the new boat is running well and I think with alittle time we should be able to dial it in better.
Yes you are correct that is the way it was explained to me...
08-31-2005, 11:02 PM
#19
arneson-industries.com
Offshoreonly Advertiser
Re: Rules 2006
Technology does not have to be “Expensive” as some might think. Obviously nothing is extremely cheap or free but if it last and produces results then you essentially get more for your $$.
As for parity and MTI, MTI entered the picture way before this parity issue came about. Look no further than “Skater” as a new company in the V bottom market.
Their boat is clearly fast if not faster than others, yet with the weight penalty people feel that the other boats are as fast or faster. No one is beating down Skaters door to get one and the field is not made up of Skater V bottoms like the success and speed would seem to warrant. To date there is only one Skater V bottom in the class.
Parity has made the existing as well as the new boats in that class competitive. Like I stated, why buy the Skater when the racer’s current boat, with adjustments made, is just as fast.
Count how many new V bottoms entered the race circuit this season and you will see that the majority of new boats were not a Skater.
Skater has not been rewarded with more sales as a result of Parity.
This is just an example.
As for parity and MTI, MTI entered the picture way before this parity issue came about. Look no further than “Skater” as a new company in the V bottom market.
Their boat is clearly fast if not faster than others, yet with the weight penalty people feel that the other boats are as fast or faster. No one is beating down Skaters door to get one and the field is not made up of Skater V bottoms like the success and speed would seem to warrant. To date there is only one Skater V bottom in the class.
Parity has made the existing as well as the new boats in that class competitive. Like I stated, why buy the Skater when the racer’s current boat, with adjustments made, is just as fast.
Count how many new V bottoms entered the race circuit this season and you will see that the majority of new boats were not a Skater.
Skater has not been rewarded with more sales as a result of Parity.
This is just an example.
09-01-2005, 10:17 AM
#20
Registered
Re: Rules 2006
I for one am dead set AGAINST adding weight to boats that are winning. I realize that no one wants to come in second all the time but thats the fact of it. If you don't have a better mouse trap then do something about it or expect to stay out of the winners circle. Its that simple to me! As an example Skater builds a super fast good running SV that no one could catch this year. So if you want to run with the big dogs then you should buy a Skater SV and pay the big money for it. If you cant spend that kind of money then drop down a class and buy the best boat in that class. If you dont do that then I dont know why you should feel the need to have someone else penalized for him spending more money and buying a better engineered product.
On the other side of the coin I do agree on giving some assistance to some slower boats where the old tec is not keeping up. I would not agree to give them an edge to be able to win but maybe run mid pack at best. and this is only for a limited time.
MD
On the other side of the coin I do agree on giving some assistance to some slower boats where the old tec is not keeping up. I would not agree to give them an edge to be able to win but maybe run mid pack at best. and this is only for a limited time.
MD
