J Motor Setback: An alternative to Tucking?
  • One of the biggest arguments for allowing extreme tuck in the J classes is that it allows heavier drivers the ability to get on plane.

    A number of other people have suggested that by instead instituting a minimum "set back" rule (distance from gearcase to bottom of boat) might be a better way to insure that J boats are easier to plane for all drivers.

    Members of the J Committee are interesting in hearing your thoughts:  would a 4" setback accomplish the planing issue?  3"?  6"?  What might be the unintended consequences?

    Input, please.

    R-19


    APBA Member #: 6635
    Boat #: R-19, 19-R
    Classes: 20SSH, BSH, CSR, 25SSR
    Region 10
  • 22 Comments sorted by
  • In JH-JR both my children ( Justin and Val) always ran 3-4" setback of the torpedo from the trailing edge of the respective boat(runabout and hydro).............i also set the engines level to maybe 1/2" kicked in or kicked out.

    The only reason to 'supertuck' a boat is to 'cheat' the transom height restriction. By 'supertucking a motor you can jack it up and hence increase running RPM and go faster at the expense of losing handling and risking injury.

    If you mandate a J runabout and J hydro setback of say 4' in my opinion most planing issues go away. However, the rule pushers may still be looking to 'supertuck' under this requirement??. I am not sure what would happen if you have a 4' setback and someone still trys to set the angle in say 2 to 3 inches in??

    My other concern on a setback JH rule would be that you would be now having to build 'special boats' for JH as most if not all JH and AXH and ASH hulls have inset transoms. I would suggest putting the 'tuck rule' in place in JR as it is now in effect in JH and monitor it for a couple seasons. If JH goes to a 4' setback requirement then it would be very hard to run JH and AXH and ASH and K-PRO on the same boats as 99 percent of us do now!!

    The attached photo below is a STRAIGHT JH hull with the transom non-inset. To achieve a 4 inch setback of the torpedo this is what you would have to build which makes the boat useless as a AXH or ASH or a KPRO.




    6-Unfinished View from Stern.JPG
    640 x 427 - 135K


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • matt1us said:

    In JH-JR both my children ( Justin and Val) always ran 3-4" setback of the torpedo from the trailing edge of the respective boat(runabout and hydro).............i also set the engines level to maybe 1/2" kicked in or kicked out.

    The only reason to 'supertuck' a boat is to 'cheat' the transom height restriction. By 'supertucking a motor you can jack it up and hence increase running RPM and go faster at the expense of losing handling and risking injury.

    If you mandate a J runabout and J hydro setback of say 4' in my opinion most planing issues go away. However, the rule pushers may still be looking to 'supertuck' under this requirement??. I am not sure what would happen if you have a 4' setback and someone still trys to set the angle in say 2 to 3 inches in??

    My other concern on a setback JH rule would be that you would be now having to build 'special boats' for JH as most if not all JH and AXH and ASH hulls have inset transoms. I would suggest putting the 'tuck rule' in place in JR as it is now in effect in JH and monitor it for a couple seasons. If JH goes to a 4' setback requirement then it would be very hard to run JH and AXH and ASH and K-PRO on the same boats as 99 percent of us do now!!

    The attached photo below is a STRAIGHT JH hull with the transom non-inset. To achieve a 4 inch setback of the torpedo this is what you would have to build which makes the boat useless as a AXH or ASH or a KPRO.









    APBA Member #: 6362
    Boat #: 3H
    Classes: CSH, 302SSH?
    Region 7



  • APBA Member #: 8738
    Boat #: 12M
    Classes: Array, Array
    Region 6
  • Patrick,
    After going to 1 3/4" depth, there aren't many kids who struggled to get on plane.

    Mike


    APBA Member #: 9071
    Boat #: 225- V
    Classes: 20ssH, CSH, OSY400
    Region 7
  • I don’t know the right answer on this one…but if we put a set-back measurement in, wouldn't it become a horse power show then? Think of the money you can spend chasing that.

    My suggestion, do nothing leave the rules where it is at for now.  


    APBA Member #: 10673
    Boat #: Owner of 11
    Classes: Raced many stock classes when I was racing
    Region 7
  • BigDon said:

    …but if we put a set-back measurement in, wouldn't it become a horse power show then? Think of the money you can spend chasing that.

     



    Big Don
    Do tell? How would a setback make it a horsepower race anymore or less than it is now with inset transoms and height restrictions?

    However i agree with you......let's NOT encourage a set-back requirement now!


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Why not encourage it?  It would make it much easier for new incoming J parents and new names to learn how to race.  Right now planning one of these rigs with a fast set up requires a light child who has great dexterity to be able to compete.  At least if it is solely a horsepower issue you might be able to overcome that.  However, if your kid does not feel comfortable climbing out on the deck or if they are over 140 they will be forced into running a set up that is not as fast in order to be able to plane.  The J Harm project is the exact reason why we should be encouraging this type of rule change.  Those kids should not start with the torpedo under the bottom of the boat and tucked 1 1/2 inches.  Even the ones you can teach to "feather" the throttle and not blow out the prop...it is a useless skill as they advance their racing career. 

    If not now, when?


    APBA Member #: 8738
    Boat #: 12M
    Classes: Array, Array
    Region 6
  • Matt, how I see it is, as the rule is now the driver and parent has the ability to change the set up to fit the drivers needs and experience.  It can be changed as the driver gains experience and grows. 

    If we limit it to a set measurement we could be hampering the ability to adjust.  When we ran J we had to change the setup as the kids grew.  We also were about 4 inches away from the back of the boat back then and there were times that we would notice that they were having a harder time getting on plane so we would test to find a better setup. 

    I just think if we put a setup measurement in, it will make horsepower even more important. 

    I also think before we just go throwing a measurement on it, a bunch of testing should be done.  What if 4 inches doesn’t work for some of the boats?  Then what?  I think we need to do what is right and fits for most but we need to be careful so we don’t make an bigger problem. 

    I just don't think it's broke right now and we should leave it alone.

    Just a  EX-J Dad. Glad I'm past the J days.  Until the grandkids ready. 



    APBA Member #: 10673
    Boat #: Owner of 11
    Classes: Raced many stock classes when I was racing
    Region 7
  • Big Don/Dean...............like i said above, my biggest issue for now is the 'VALUE' for a family race team to switch the boat from a JH to AXH by merely taking out the restrictor. If a set back is put in place the boats become one dimensional and i believe having boats and motors that can run in multiple classes is a GOOD thing in Stock Outboarding/ J Class.

    Yes, setting the motor back will help planing but at what cost to having multi purpose hulls??? Maybe just the TUCK RULE being in place for now is the best first step.

    I think it kinda funny that 'old J Dads' like Don and I who have no kid in the class are the ones all over this topic. Guess we will always be J Dads at heart. lol.


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Matt you really should re read both Dean and Big Don's comments.  If you want to narrow this to a horsepower race, then the transom set back will do that.  Any other measures will only make it much more difficult for many J teams to get on plane ( with a fast set up) and there by limit competition by a large percentage of participating J teams.  You cannot just change one variable( with no conclusive testing and or statistical data) whether it be set back or engine tuck without negitively affecting performance.  Big Don's closing statement has been repeated on this and other sites by multiple participating J teams, " if it is not broke don't fix it"  The APBA Junior program has been working successfully for years, why not evaluate, like the J committee is supposed to do for this tuck rule this year, and then put a plan in place for the future, more like the region 10 program, now that would be a better first step.  ANY changes are just gonna cost, $$$$   just sayin .


    APBA Member #:
    Boat #: 13-F
    Classes: J Hydro, J Runabout
    Region 5
  • KarlDyle said:

    The APBA Junior program has been working successfully for years, why not evaluate, like the J committee is supposed to do for this tuck rule this year, and then put a plan in place for the future, more like the region 10 program, now that would be a better first step.  ANY changes are just gonna cost, $$$$   just sayin .



    Karl: Just to clarify, the JH DOES at present have a tuck rule in place. The 2013 J Committee did not enact the tuck rule in JR for 2014, and asked the 2014 committee to continue to observe JR and if it found it was needed, to consider a similar rule for JR that is currently in place for JH.

    Hope that clarifies,

    R-19



    APBA Member #: 6635
    Boat #: R-19, 19-R
    Classes: 20SSH, BSH, CSR, 25SSR
    Region 10
  • karl.............my bad. i assumed you had read the previous posts and knew that the 'tuck 1/2" rule ' was put in place November 1, 2013 for JH.

    the 'banter' going on here on Pat's thread is about what a 'set-back' would do for the JH boats. i have to admit i am not sure why it would become a horsepower race anymore or less than it is now???? Just sayin. :)

    also the J Harm Project has to abide by the same set of rules as everyone else i believe. i am not sure if Pat and the folks are 'insetting' the transoms?? i will have to look back at his pics to see.

    but having had lots of experience in J Class over the past 20 years one thing i can feel comfortable stating is that J Hydros will plane off a lot easier (all kids) with the engine 3-4" set back from the trailing edge of the hull given the nature of the APBA spec props! i just fear that a minimum set back rule will obsolete many many current boats in use now for JH and AXH.


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • karl.............i attached a pic of one of the Harm Project boats under construction. Looks like the 'Set back' is about 4" on this one.

    i imagine it will plane right off...........
    1510686_10202841480419477_432102504_n.jpg
    640 x 427 - 46K


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Matt................. I am aware of the new tuck rule as of 11/1/13, and I was referencing one of the J proposals( R Hearn's) on this site that stated that the committee was going to review the last years ( previous to 11/1/13 ) J races, and determine whether it was in fact necessary to continue with the "new" tuck rule for next year or not, I could have mis read that one.  The issue of set back seems straight forward enough, no one has challenged the planability of boats with a greater set back, but a tuck rule with no set back does make for extremely difficult planing even with lightweight drivers, the closer the lower unit is to the transom, the more the propeller is brought out of the water, the more rpm's you get , no? .  once again just changing one variable will not fix whatever problem it is you are trying to fix.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  just sayin.  Or change away, it will work well for some, just not all.


    APBA Member #:
    Boat #: 13-F
    Classes: J Hydro, J Runabout
    Region 5
  • Yep, the closer the OMC/Merc racing unit is brought to the rear of the boat and even under the boat, the faster you go for the reasons you stated.

    That's why the AXH,ASH, K-PRO hulls have a inset transoms. But the one difference is the J Hydros have to run the spec APBA prop and that planes hard when the lower unit is shoved under the boat. I am not in favor of a set-back rule as i stated but i think  the 1/2" tuck will keep the JH class safer. Maybe at some point we have to realize this is RACING and we can't have everything legislated perfectly as to assure we are all 100% equal. Race teams may just have to keep 'adjusting' their equipment to suit there driver and the J Committee keep a watchful eye out and make adjustments as needed using common sense. :)


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Matt, this issue is significant not for existing racers, but for supporting our Racer Schools and New Name recruiting.  It is impossible to explain this class and how to compete to new people.  When we do show the New Names the class and Moms or the new kids see how to plane it freaks them out.  I am not guessing here, I am relaying the experiences within MHRA Racer School with this class.

    I hate more rules and the constant changes, BUT now anytime I read a potential rule change I judge it on....."will this rule help get New Name Racers or does it help existing racers".  A setback will absolutely help new racers - its not even debatable.  I do think the limited tuck is a step in the right direction, but a setback it really the answer to the problem.  In this case I feel the value to recruiting outweighs the inconvenience to the existing.  Additionally, the easiest boats to sell are J boats, we always have a market to the new racer.  I am not saying it has to be done this year but a setback should be implemented at some point in the future.  Put it in this year for implementation in 2016.   

    Just some thoughts and opinions from a Racer School standpoint. 


    APBA Member #: 8738
    Boat #: 12M
    Classes: Array, Array
    Region 6
  • csh12m said:

    Matt, this issue is significant not for existing racers, but for supporting our Racer Schools and New Name recruiting.  It is impossible to explain this class and how to compete to new people.  When we do show the New Names the class and Moms or the new kids see how to plane it freaks them out.  I am not guessing here, I am relaying the experiences within MHRA Racer School with this class.

    I hate more rules and the constant changes, BUT now anytime I read a potential rule change I judge it on....."will this rule help get New Name Racers or does it help existing racers".  A setback will absolutely help new racers - its not even debatable.  I do think the limited tuck is a step in the right direction, but a setback it really the answer to the problem.  In this case I feel the value to recruiting outweighs the inconvenience to the existing.  Additionally, the easiest boats to sell are J boats, we always have a market to the new racer.  I am not saying it has to be done this year but a setback should be implemented at some point in the future.  Put it in this year for implementation in 2016.   

    Just some thoughts and opinions from a Racer School standpoint. 



    I agree with you the set back would be the ideal situation for J Hydros...............i think i saw my son Justins ole orange and black Flyer in one of your schools. That boat (1997 model) was National Champion and dominant for several years and of course had a set-back transom as all the J boats and A Hydros did in those days. We could plane off the 2 blade APBA props in 50 feet all day long!!

    Buttttt, today boatbuilders are building these 18-20 degree inset transoms for ASH, AXH and K-PRO and the J Hydros are stuck trying to plane off these specialized hulls.

    Not sure what the answer is but as you said, the Tuck rule in JH will help................

    At local club races it is often tough to field boats and imposing more rules which would make interchanging boats (AXH to JH) illegal because of trying to conform to the setback might hurt participation here on the East coast?? But then again, if we all bite the bullet and require the kind of transoms in the previously pics i posted then i guess in time it will be the norm again in JH and when a kid is ready for AXH or ASH they will have to just buy a new boat.??/


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Seriously, what does the tuck rule help???

    Its going to help us blow over our JH... awesome.


    APBA Member #: 9071
    Boat #: 225- V
    Classes: 20ssH, CSH, OSY400
    Region 7
  • Mike, now that the rules for 2014 are set, there is no need to ask any logical questions like this, let alone have anyone actually answer it? Any relevant data evaluation and discussion has already been completed, even if the answers were not what you were wanting to hear, that's it, we have what we have. I believe that R. Hearns statement of escalating costs of J hydro racing with the addition of new rules is an accurate assumption. This year to go fast you are gonna have to break out some big $$$$$ with some "stock" merc's :-)) and some new purpose built for JH only boats designed boats, maybe they will make more "rules" next year, only time will tell. One thing for sure J class is not a entry level, or beginner friendly class. It does educate those not familiar with the nuances of "stock" APBA outboard racing, but as far as attracting and growing the sport? I'm not sure of that.


    APBA Member #:
    Boat #: 13-F
    Classes: J Hydro, J Runabout
    Region 5
  • Karl, there will always be purpose built boats for every class, there is no way around that right now. You really do not think that boats built with special transoms, extra lift, etc were not built specifically when there was no tuck rule? That is completely the opposite, there were specifically built boats like that (to get the lower unit closer to the bottom of the boat) and they are the ones that won all the races and definately not made for a newby to drive......it is the same with special built Mercs or any other motor..............they will always be there.....


    APBA Member #: 1397
    Boat #: 63R
    Classes: 500ccmh/750ccmh/DSH/850ccmh
    Region 10
  • mercguy said:

    Karl, there will always be purpose built boats for every class, there is no way around that right now. You really do not think that boats built with special transoms, extra lift, etc were not built specifically when there was no tuck rule? That is completely the opposite, there were specifically built boats like that (to get the lower unit closer to the bottom of the boat) and they are the ones that won all the races and definately not made for a newby to drive......it is the same with special built Mercs or any other motor..............they will always be there.....




    Darren..........

    WELL SAID. Couldn't have said it better myself. As long as the word RACING is involved everyone will be looking for an edge. The Racing Commission felt the need to implement this SAFETY rule and now it's time to go out and adjust to it and race. Somehow i imagine the kids who are winning will figure out a way to stay out front. Funny how those things happen :)


    APBA Member #: 71441
    Boat #: 66-E
    Classes: Stock Outboard
    Region 4
  • Matt and Darren, thanks for clearing this up, all others should direct any other questions to you two I gather. Good luck all PARTICIPATING JUNIOR CLASS TEAMS in 2014 :)


    APBA Member #:
    Boat #: 13-F
    Classes: J Hydro, J Runabout
    Region 5