Prop Thickness
06-17-2006, 04:27 PM
#32
Registered
Re: Prop Thickness
Originally Posted by Shane B
SO what happens to the teams who own props that are not up to spec? Are they allowed to run them the rest of the year or do they have to buy new props?
06-17-2006, 09:02 PM
#33
Re: Prop Thickness
Good point Mark, Fountain sends retail boat out the door with thinner props then are allowed on the race course.
Manufactures are trying to build the fast possible props they can build for their customers, and not to specs on the different race organizations. Their business isn't base on racers so I think that is a big part of the problem.
Manufactures are trying to build the fast possible props they can build for their customers, and not to specs on the different race organizations. Their business isn't base on racers so I think that is a big part of the problem.
06-19-2006, 01:13 PM
#35
Re: Prop Thickness
As a past racer, inspector, fan and hopefully soon racing again this thread is confusing me.
I hope it will not get deleted but in the interim I have some thoughts and questions.
I hear that since few if any of the OSS boats run Mercury’s Bravo propeller why use the specification for it?
In fact why use Mercury’s specification at all?
In OSS competition Mercury Racing Propellers do not have a good record of victory’s with exception of the cat outboards where they are all but mandated and a few sporadic Supercat finishes.
If you were to total the amount of wins in OSS on a percentage basis it would be very low most probably under 10% without the cat outboards.
I'm told the Mini Me team and its previous owner have run the same prop since 2002 what changed, the specification or the process?
Based upon what the racers choose to run it appears that both Hering and Hydramotive have better designs and castings. Why not let the leaders set the specification rather then the sponsor on there own props?
I know you will say this is none of my business but you guys posted it changed positions and posted it again. I realize you feel OSS is beyond questioning but it is really confusing to the fansand future racers and I bet current racers.
thanks for readingand any answers, Mike Carter
I hope it will not get deleted but in the interim I have some thoughts and questions.
I hear that since few if any of the OSS boats run Mercury’s Bravo propeller why use the specification for it?
In fact why use Mercury’s specification at all?
In OSS competition Mercury Racing Propellers do not have a good record of victory’s with exception of the cat outboards where they are all but mandated and a few sporadic Supercat finishes.
If you were to total the amount of wins in OSS on a percentage basis it would be very low most probably under 10% without the cat outboards.
I'm told the Mini Me team and its previous owner have run the same prop since 2002 what changed, the specification or the process?
Based upon what the racers choose to run it appears that both Hering and Hydramotive have better designs and castings. Why not let the leaders set the specification rather then the sponsor on there own props?
I know you will say this is none of my business but you guys posted it changed positions and posted it again. I realize you feel OSS is beyond questioning but it is really confusing to the fansand future racers and I bet current racers.
thanks for readingand any answers, Mike Carter
06-22-2006, 01:02 PM
#36
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Prop Thickness
The new OSS Tech Rules are available on the OSS Website at http://www.offshoresuperseries.com/rules.php
These Tech Rules have been written with input of and approved by all OSS class reps. The rules are in effect immediately. The Toronto Race will be held under these rules.
Most important changes:
Prop thickness specifications have been added for Bravo type props. They already existed for #6 type props.
Drawings have been added that show what is being measured where
The 6 week availability rule has been removed.
Comment: Please note that failure to meet these specifications constitutes a failed technical inspection. And it will result in what failed technical inspections result in: A DQ.
OSS Racers are strongly encouraged to have their props checked and measured before the next race. OSS Racers are also encouraged to communicate these rules to their propeller vendors and lab finishers.
Also please note that the gearcase issue needed no change to the Technical Rules. Except for the Extreme classes, gearcase modifications were not allowed and will not be allowed. Failure to observe this rule will result in … see above.
Teeth may be grinded, lower units may not.
These Tech Rules have been written with input of and approved by all OSS class reps. The rules are in effect immediately. The Toronto Race will be held under these rules.
Most important changes:
Prop thickness specifications have been added for Bravo type props. They already existed for #6 type props.
Drawings have been added that show what is being measured where
The 6 week availability rule has been removed.
Comment: Please note that failure to meet these specifications constitutes a failed technical inspection. And it will result in what failed technical inspections result in: A DQ.
OSS Racers are strongly encouraged to have their props checked and measured before the next race. OSS Racers are also encouraged to communicate these rules to their propeller vendors and lab finishers.
Also please note that the gearcase issue needed no change to the Technical Rules. Except for the Extreme classes, gearcase modifications were not allowed and will not be allowed. Failure to observe this rule will result in … see above.
Teeth may be grinded, lower units may not.
06-22-2006, 02:47 PM
#37
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Prop Thickness
"Teeth may be grinded, lower units may not."
Grinded??? Polished...same thing or different?
I sent an inquiry to Mike Tomlinson asking about drive modifications. May dings and scratches be removed? May a drived that came shiny when new be polished to retain its original luster? Inquiring minds want to know and since we are now splitting hairs, we need to know.
I'll post his response.
Allen
Grinded??? Polished...same thing or different?
I sent an inquiry to Mike Tomlinson asking about drive modifications. May dings and scratches be removed? May a drived that came shiny when new be polished to retain its original luster? Inquiring minds want to know and since we are now splitting hairs, we need to know.
I'll post his response.
Allen
06-23-2006, 12:41 AM
#38
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Prop Thickness
The idea of this and all other OSS rules has always been to stop the hair splitting. And the recent tightening of the rules was the result of too much hairsplitting.
As far as drives go, they must be unmodified. "The original shape of the gearcase is not to be altered. Other modifications to the outdrive(s) or its components require written OSS in approval."
If in doubt: Approach an OSS inspector and get it in writing.
As far as drives go, they must be unmodified. "The original shape of the gearcase is not to be altered. Other modifications to the outdrive(s) or its components require written OSS in approval."
If in doubt: Approach an OSS inspector and get it in writing.
06-23-2006, 06:35 AM
#39
Registered
Re: Prop Thickness
There is a simple clause in the rule book on page 4 of the Technical rules that avoids the hair spliting.
"IF THIS RULEBOOK DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW SOMETHING,
THEN YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT IT IS ILLEGAL.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED."
I believe something similar was in the old APBA rulebook and is in the SBI/APBA rulebook.
"IF THIS RULEBOOK DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW SOMETHING,
THEN YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT IT IS ILLEGAL.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED."
I believe something similar was in the old APBA rulebook and is in the SBI/APBA rulebook.
06-23-2006, 07:22 AM
#40
Registered
Thread Starter
Re: Prop Thickness
A lot of people forget about page 4! I have heard many people say: It doesn't say we cant do it in the rules. Very few times have I ever heard someone say: I wasn't sure so I got written permission to proceed with my idea. This is why people are now splitting hairs. Maybe,just maybe if we all did a little more homework and spent as much time and money as the boats in the front of the pack we would have better results. Me included
MD
MD
