It's true what you say about the Zen's Pete, most of what's running around the traps in modded form is Zen based, or a Zen Hybrid A few continue to mod RCMKs and others, but they continue to be the minority for lots of reasons including those you have stated.
I also stripped my own Stock Zen last year after 3 years of running, hadn't even changed the ring up to that point. Everything inside was in great condition even the bearings were still smooth. Rock solid entry level engines.
Having said that, even my modded Zen and Quick draw engines have been reliable, most if not all of the issues I've had with them have been a result of my own negligence, not the implied reduced reliability of running a modded engine. I'd suggest that those frequently blowing engines or spending a lot of money keeping a modded engine running, might want to consider using another engine builder.
It's also true to suggest that there's a lot more to a fast boat than just a fast engine. Watched a video the other night of Morgan Plummer's R42 at Tauranga , I think it was last year's NI champs,the boat was way faster than anything else out there. Those R42's are a very quick Hull. Even with Stock engines, I can still see the check book racing brigade(BTW I'm NOT suggesting Morgan is a member of that fraternity)going out and buying the fastest hull and a hundred's of props to have the fastest stock boat as well. It's the nature of competition.
I take issue with your suggestion of those partaking in this discussion as being to derail the committee. The committee is elected by the members to act in the interests of the members and ultimately the organisation. Generating and running conversations such as this is a great way for the membership to discuss new concepts and also for the committee to get feedback about new concepts. This thread so far is doing exactly that.
As part of discussion about the "committee powers" remit for the SGM, I was told that when rule changes are being considered, the committee will publish them for consultation before they're enacted with amendments based on the feedback. The introduction of the stock class has circumvented this promised process already.
Thanks also to Steve for providing more background to the introduction of the stock class.
T2 has two options, get rid of it and retain Petrol Sport hydro in it's current form, or take the likely-more-palatable option of opening it up to any P2 engine. Even that option essentially makes it a restricted Hull P2 hydro class.
The move to stock classes for Mono and Cats effectively adds a half day to the race schedule. A lot of talk in previous years has been about rationalising classes in order to make the nationals fit the four day Easter period. Therefore the addition of these stock classes comes at a "cost" of an extra half day's racing and an extra day's annual leave for particpants.
The final question is how will the committee judge the success of the trial of stock Cat and Mono classes? i.e how will we know the introduction of these classes has been worth it? Will the judgement be based on the number of rookies each year competing in these classes? Or what will be the measure? It seems to me that simply judging it based on the number of class entries alone can be biased by existing competitors simply running their stick engines, or judging by overall Nats entries is subject to yearly variations in attendance.
How will we know we have achieved the objective?
That's all for now.
|
Author
Re: 2014 Nationals