215hp hydro, racing and the economy

Scottie Mac · 02-12-2010, 11:52 AM

I figured I would start a new thread seeing that I didn't want to go off track in Mark Queens Hydro thread.

I for one would love to have a 215hp Hydro. If for nothing else than the smile factor it would bring to my face.

BUT, I can see the 4 stroke basher's points. The rules structures have put us in a situation where you need to spend WAY more to build a competitive ski or runabout. I mean, 60K for a race runabout? The amount of people who could or even WOULD do that for a 200 buck payout and a plastic trophy are far and few between.

I don't think it is Hydro's fault at all, I blame it on the rules makers who have allowed it to happen. 13K for a hydro is not that bad. Not for a ski you can race in 4 classes. I agree with Mo on this. But, 13K won't touch what you would spend if you are taking that ski to the next level like the RiverRat Family. Again, not their fault they can do this, but I feel we have gotten away from what made this sport cool. When we had really full lines, heats, etc just to get to a real champ. Is the sport better off with these 70mph rockets and 10 legit challengers, or would it be better off with more restrictive rules and 50 challengers, where rider skill was more important than rider income. You will always have your better riders. Guys like Kevin R, Steven D and Botti would probably still win if the skis were only capable of 60mph, but it would be nice to see them have to work qualifiers and mains to do so.

If we want Yamaha and Kawi to invest the money it will take to produce good 4 strokes, we as a sport need to show them that it is a financially intelligent thing to do. And the only way we are going to do that is to grow our sport back to somewhat close to what it was in its best years. Are 30K skis and 60K runabouts really going to help accomplish this goal? Can anyone honestly believe that increasing costs are good for the sport? Many people believe we need to get outside sponsorship. I couldn't agree more. But, we are back to the same numbers game, until we can show company A, B or C that we are a big sport with lots of following, no smart marketing manager is going to drop loads of money into it.

Lastly, and this is the thing that bothers me the most. Does anyone else feel that we are losing the opportunity to see the next level of great riders because of these problems? I have had the privilege to work with one of the better young riders out there in years past. I have no doubt in my mind at all, that with the right backing, he could have competed with the best in the world. From size, skill, endurance, etc, he has what it took to be great. Why is he not racing now? Simple, money. His parents, who aren't poor by any means, just couldn't justify dropping 10s of thousands of dollars into a sport that had no future for their child. I go to races now and it bums me out to know that if he would have had the backing, there was no glass ceiling for his future. That is a shame. But, if the sport was more affordable, he would still be out there fighting for championships. Are we really getting the best vs. the best with the current state of our sport?

I don't want this post to be looked at as bashing of any ski, person, etc. I just wonder if there is anyone in our sport who has the outside the box thinking that we need to bring us back. And, in my opinion, until we make this sport more economically friendly, we are just going to continue to go down the same road we have been going for years and years.

Just thinking out loud.

momarski · 02-12-2010, 12:17 PM

I think was harris is doing is the right thing do to, in a couple of years he will be a professional and be able to fund his own program, hes not gonna lose any of his skills, no one forgets to ride a bicycle, I have seen so many young guns from our sport go to school when it was the right time and its always the right time, alot of them never come back though, former world champ chris wilkinson is now at ucla, both harris and chris are having the times of there life right now, theres nothing better then living on a college campus, its a blast, its just too fun! I am betting that little McMillan will do the same thing!

The kind of machines that riverrat are building are beyond and above anything k-ret rides, botti and daulliauch are not on these kinds of hydros, only rius and riverrat have these kinds of hydros

but both rius and riverat are selling these kinds of hydros and there will be a few people with the giant bucks who will buy them but nobody with top ten skills will have to buy them

klipper might have things worked out on his version, hes using alot of the same parts but other then that everyone else is on basic 180+ hydros, k-rets black boat was 200 horses and his orange boat at the finals was set at 180, they were both autronic I beleive, k-ret has proved himself to be the premiere rider in the world, but daulliauch and klipper are right there with him

Water Worx · 02-12-2010, 12:34 PM

Scottie Mac for Pres.

rdelconte · 02-12-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie Mac

I figured I would start a new thread seeing that I didn't want to go off track in Mark Queens Hydro thread.

I for one would love to have a 215hp Hydro. If for nothing else than the smile factor it would bring to my face.

BUT, I can see the 4 stroke basher's points. The rules structures have put us in a situation where you need to spend WAY more to build a competitive ski or runabout. I mean, 60K for a race runabout? The amount of people who could or even WOULD do that for a 200 buck payout and a plastic trophy are far and few between.

I don't think it is Hydro's fault at all, I blame it on the rules makers who have allowed it to happen. 13K for a hydro is not that bad. Not for a ski you can race in 4 classes. I agree with Mo on this. But, 13K won't touch what you would spend if you are taking that ski to the next level like the RiverRat Family. Again, not their fault they can do this, but I feel we have gotten away from what made this sport cool. When we had really full lines, heats, etc just to get to a real champ. Is the sport better off with these 70mph rockets and 10 legit challengers, or would it be better off with more restrictive rules and 50 challengers, where rider skill was more important than rider income. You will always have your better riders. Guys like Kevin R, Steven D and Botti would probably still win if the skis were only capable of 60mph, but it would be nice to see them have to work qualifiers and mains to do so.

If we want Yamaha and Kawi to invest the money it will take to produce good 4 strokes, we as a sport need to show them that it is a financially intelligent thing to do. And the only way we are going to do that is to grow our sport back to somewhat close to what it was in its best years. Are 30K skis and 60K runabouts really going to help accomplish this goal? Can anyone honestly believe that increasing costs are good for the sport? Many people believe we need to get outside sponsorship. I couldn't agree more. But, we are back to the same numbers game, until we can show company A, B or C that we are a big sport with lots of following, no smart marketing manager is going to drop loads of money into it.

Lastly, and this is the thing that bothers me the most. Does anyone else feel that we are losing the opportunity to see the next level of great riders because of these problems? I have had the privilege to work with one of the better young riders out there in years past. I have no doubt in my mind at all, that with the right backing, he could have competed with the best in the world. From size, skill, endurance, etc, he has what it took to be great. Why is he not racing now? Simple, money. His parents, who aren't poor by any means, just couldn't justify dropping 10s of thousands of dollars into a sport that had no future for their child. I go to races now and it bums me out to know that if he would have had the backing, there was no glass ceiling for his future. That is a shame. But, if the sport was more affordable, he would still be out there fighting for championships. Are we really getting the best vs. the best with the current state of our sport?

I don't want this post to be looked at as bashing of any ski, person, etc. I just wonder if there is anyone in our sport who has the outside the box thinking that we need to bring us back. And, in my opinion, until we make this sport more economically friendly, we are just going to continue to go down the same road we have been going for years and years.

Just thinking out loud.

IMO the only way to take this sport back to where it needs to be is to promote more "spec" style classes. This will even the playing field in all classes and make it about the racer that wants it more. The racer that practices 5 times a week. The one that trains the hardest. The one that has the most talent.

There are not many racers that are willing/able to drop $60K on open boats. What happened to the days where you could buy a brand new ski for $6-7K, drop another $1,500 in performance parts and be competitive? Be able to go out and run limited and mod on the same ski and be competitive. That is when racing was at its peak. When regional races had to run three heats and two LCQ's. Where racers actually had to run WFQ and qualify to be invited to Havasu. When racing was fun.

If racing reverted back to the grass roots (making it fun, affordable and competitive for everyone) then you will see a rebirth of PWC racing. Without that, we are going to be stuck where we are now... a third class racing organization.

Water Worx · 02-12-2010, 01:05 PM

Ross for VP.

skidmark · 02-12-2010, 01:09 PM

Scottie you are 100% right well thought out

Scottie Mac · 02-12-2010, 01:11 PM

I agree completely, Ross. A perfect example is Sport Mod. While it is fun to race mod, the costs to build a competitive ski has gone through the roof, especially on a blaster. But as soon as we came up with a class that is affordable and fair - sport spec - people started talking and people started coming back and with little to know help from anyone other than this message board, we had one of the largest classes in all of racing last year. I don't understand why more people can't understand the direct correlation between cost and participation. I believe the best way to save our sport is to GREATLY reduce the amount of classes to the point where it means something to win, and to figure out a way to bring racing back to the common man. I don't think for a second that this will be easy or painless, but I 100% believe that it is necessary.

Scottie

godocgo · 02-12-2010, 01:17 PM

hey is it snowing up there again : )

could not agree more brother

lee

tshank123 · 02-12-2010, 01:18 PM

I'm split on this. One side of me agrees with you Scottie but the other side, the fan, thinks that we deserve to see the best that technology has to offer. In all other racing forms, the very top racers are not on that kind of budget. 30K to be at the very top of the sport is not much compared to say 100K cracker box boats. How much does a top fuel street rod run? Do people in these motor sports complain that the kids can't get into it because of the cost? Racing (and I mean at the high levels) is extremely expensive.

kawi105 · 02-12-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tshank123

I'm split on this. One side of me agrees with you Scottie but the other side, the fan, thinks that we deserve to see the best that technology has to offer. In all other racing forms, the very top racers are not on that kind of budget. 30K to be at the very top of the sport is not much compared to say 100K cracker box boats. How much does a top fuel street rod run? Do people in these motor sports complain that the kids can't get into it because of the cost? Racing (and I mean at the high levels) is extremely expensive.

I think that the stock-superstock should be afffordable spec like classes.

But open/mod/GP should showcase the best of the best in terms of performance/rider skill.