Several other reasons for PRO Capsule Rule
The overiding reason (at least the one given publicly) for the capsule rule in PRO starting with 1100 Hydro and then phasing in 700 and 500 over a three year period, was a death that occurred during testing at the DePue Nationals the summer prior the the APBA national meeting where the rule was voted in by the PRO Commission. The driver killed was Gerry Drake, a really nice guy and tough competitor in the big hydro classes. Gerry was a VERY experienced driver for quite a few years, but he really liked to run a boat loose. I had a conversation with him at a USTS race in NY just shortly before DePue where I remarked to him he was really running on the edge of disaster insofar as the boat off the water during testing. He was a pretty fearless guy and he just laughed and said "you got to run loose if you want to run fast". That thought has stayed with me for a long time now when ever someone mentions his name and that accident.
I attended the PRO Commission meeting where the capsule rule was voted in and shortly before the commission voted and during the discussion period about the rule, I asked the question "has anyone really thought this thru as to what the repercussions will be insofar as how it will affect the classes participant wise because of the amount of money involved to phase out the old boats and phase in the new. I was basically told to "sit down and shut up, this is a done deal". In addition I heard from many privy to the inner working of that commission that there were other reasons for this rule, none of which there is any good reason to go into at this late date.
My point was that to have a successful boat racing class it takes more than just the top three or four competitors in the class. It takes all the "also rans" also, that make up the rest of the field to have a successful class in boat racing, no matter the category. At that time to go from a non-capsuled boat to a capsuled boat was in the 12-15K range and I don't think it has gotten any cheaper over the years. That is a lot of money to ask someone to spend if the reason they race is other than to finish in the top 3 or 4, and my point was that it seemed a good way to kill several classes, or at least really work a hardship on the guys that wanted to run them, by making it prohibitively expensive to do so, WHEN NOTHING ELSE WAS EVER TRIED FIRST FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE PARTICIPANTS.
Possibly anything that would have been tried would not have worked, like the short lived "Sprint 500 Class" or whatever it was called, but the point is a drastic measure was taken without much feedback from all the participants in the affected classes that it would be hard to argue did not effectively render those classes mere shadows of their former selves. Anyone who attended the National and World Championship races in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's when the economy and difficulty of securing races sites started to affect the number of races and consequently the number of racers, would be hard pressed to argue with that fact.
As one who has been severely injured several time in a race boat, I am a great believer in making racing as safe as possible. That is one reason I argued so strongly in favor of the "radio rule" a few years ago, another rule that had to do with "safety" as the reason for passage, but in reality was anything but. That being said, any type racing, especially Boat Racing, and especially boat racing at the speeds PRO boats travel today, is inherently a dangerous sport. Most folks (there are always a few who don't meet the rule of good sense) realize this and try to exercise caution when participating. Evidently if the accident rate in SE/FE is as has been stated, very low, then that must be the case with those classes. But you can't take all the risk from boat racing, as it would not be "racing" anymore, so there is a fine line to walk in being as safe as possible and not having any racing at all.
That is why I cringed somewhat reading some of the posts on this thread, as it looks to me as though you may be headed towards a capsule rule whether you want it or not if you keep up this kind of a discussion on an open forum. It would seem to me you would all be better served to have the interested parties get together privately and come up with a way to satisfy some of the problems you are starting to get into with this class, rather than continue on a public forum. If not you may have it done for you in a way that satisfies no one and leaves a lot of folks without their existing toys to play with.
Where are the RULES & SPECS POSTED?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seaward
I have been building SE engines for the NBRA racing program using rules that state reed cages and carbs. must be conventionally located. Also material may not be added to engine to increase such size. If this is incorrect info Please let me know so I can increase airflow before season starts.
Hal
Where are the NBRA rules and specs posted?
Is there a inspection sheet with dims available
to all? Is a template used to check?
Does "CONVENTIONALLY LOCATED" mean in the original "STOCK LOCATION" ?
If you think it does what are the original dimensions with a tolerance please
Thanks
Anthony
38-E