Rich Luhrs Commentary: Endurance Presents a “New Model" for Offshore Racing
10-11-2011, 04:23 PM
#91
Allergic to Nonsense
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Granite Quarry, NC
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Sorry, Rich, but your ”Baja 1000” analogy simply doesn’t hold. Indy Cars can’t run the Baja 1000 for obvious reasons of setup and terrain. But are you honestly suggesting a Super Cat, Super V, Super V Light couldn’t complete an offshore endurance event? Come on, a stock 38-foot Sonic won the Around Long Island title last year—and won it in style.
I also have to respectfully disagree with you on your assertion about “offshore hulls” being out of their element on near-shore closed-course circuits. If a boat rolls in a turn, you don’t blame the boat, no matter how big it is or how tight the turn was. The overwhelming majority of offshore race boats, in fact, get through the turns without rolling. That’s a fact.
I have witnessed excellent near-shore closed course “offshore racing” action during the years across several classes from Super V Light to Super Cat. Without question, the compelling nature of those races was directly proportional to the number of boats in each class. While it only takes two boats to race, my feeling is it takes four for a worthwhile class. Otherwise, everyone gets to the podium.
Last but not least, while I can see lots of reasons why you might not like turbines in offshore racing, are you seriously attacking them for “shameless fuel gulping?” A Mercury Racing 1350 at wide-open throttle showed a burn rate of 200 gallons per hour per engine during a Powerboat magazine test I was part of. Joe Cibellis averaged 1 mile per gallon during his record-setting round Long Island run with Joe Sgro in a 43’ Outerlimits with 725-hp Ilmors.
My point? When it comes to fuel consumption in the high-performance boat world, it’s pretty much all shameless. And the general public will never accept any of it as efficient or economical.
So going back to my original point, which Chuck also seems to support, I think a hybrid offshore racing series with a mix of “courses” is doable and compelling. I think one or the other is problematic.
I also have to respectfully disagree with you on your assertion about “offshore hulls” being out of their element on near-shore closed-course circuits. If a boat rolls in a turn, you don’t blame the boat, no matter how big it is or how tight the turn was. The overwhelming majority of offshore race boats, in fact, get through the turns without rolling. That’s a fact.
I have witnessed excellent near-shore closed course “offshore racing” action during the years across several classes from Super V Light to Super Cat. Without question, the compelling nature of those races was directly proportional to the number of boats in each class. While it only takes two boats to race, my feeling is it takes four for a worthwhile class. Otherwise, everyone gets to the podium.
Last but not least, while I can see lots of reasons why you might not like turbines in offshore racing, are you seriously attacking them for “shameless fuel gulping?” A Mercury Racing 1350 at wide-open throttle showed a burn rate of 200 gallons per hour per engine during a Powerboat magazine test I was part of. Joe Cibellis averaged 1 mile per gallon during his record-setting round Long Island run with Joe Sgro in a 43’ Outerlimits with 725-hp Ilmors.
My point? When it comes to fuel consumption in the high-performance boat world, it’s pretty much all shameless. And the general public will never accept any of it as efficient or economical.
So going back to my original point, which Chuck also seems to support, I think a hybrid offshore racing series with a mix of “courses” is doable and compelling. I think one or the other is problematic.
This debate clearly points out the perspective differences between generations. The younger players know all about today and a little about yesterday. The older generations lived in both and therefore have a clarity that spans multiple time periods. When Offshore hulls were created the goal was to defeat big water.... The sanctioning bodies brought them closer to shore to create better visability...but nothing was done to the designs to make them turn any better other than the creation of safety cockpits to protect the occupants from the higher speed crashes and barrel rolls resulting from shorter, calmer courses. Fact is the smaller the course, the smaller the hull should be to get around tighter corners. Smaller hulls also accelerate faster for short straightaways...hence an Unlimited hydro will defeat any Offshore hull at Detroit...and a Champ boat will defeat any Unlimited Hydro at Bay City...etc. Add to that the simple fact that one man with a wheel and foot throttle will beat two separate drivers around a short closed course (due to reaction times and eye/hand/foot coordination) and the contradiction of big hulls on little courses comes into sharper focus. The final issue has to do with common sense. If you are going to put Offshore hulls into tight confines that don't require a second (or third!) occupant ....why risk the additional lives in the event of the inevitable spinouts, collisions and assorted mayhem resulting from the conditions?
The fact that many people have enjoyed the regional races in bays and lakes is a good point....but... in truth a different, smaller hull model is more competitive, handles better and is at least as entertaining for the same audiences. In fact the regional races had a huge SOB turnout and smaller boats in general than the bigger true Offshore National race events.
Look, The current model has its ardent supporters, and I get that. If I had a substantial investment in an ultralight, 50 foot cat with uber power, I sure wouldn't want to delaminate the damn thing 50 miles offshore either! But that's not the point. We are talking about endurance...... real endurance..... and some existing hulls (and drivers) might not be up for the challenge....But I bet a whole new breed of racer is out there who would love to take a crack at it....even if they are "Old school".
T2x
10-11-2011, 05:00 PM
#92
Allergic to Nonsense
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Granite Quarry, NC
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Thank you Matt , the hypocrisy of the some of the old salts writing is almost laughable.
It's not this era vs the past..who cares.. it's the card this generation was dealt. Don't forget, this generation has it's life on the line as well.
My patience with stubborn closed minded thinking has worn thin. Like crabby old grandmas complaining. The authors should take a que from the likes of Jim Houser and Odel Lewis and embrace the direction of the sport, mentor the new breed and hope that some of them see the inspiration,knowledge and important lessons that they could offer to the future racers. Those new guys could in turn help promote the co-mingling of the two eras. Suggestions of inferiority to the past decades of racers should be reserved to the bar where it can get the attention it deserves at the level appropriate....and then forgotten until the following year.
It's not this era vs the past..who cares.. it's the card this generation was dealt. Don't forget, this generation has it's life on the line as well.
My patience with stubborn closed minded thinking has worn thin. Like crabby old grandmas complaining. The authors should take a que from the likes of Jim Houser and Odel Lewis and embrace the direction of the sport, mentor the new breed and hope that some of them see the inspiration,knowledge and important lessons that they could offer to the future racers. Those new guys could in turn help promote the co-mingling of the two eras. Suggestions of inferiority to the past decades of racers should be reserved to the bar where it can get the attention it deserves at the level appropriate....and then forgotten until the following year.
) cage....but if the suggestion was made that new racers are inferior to the old...that makes no sense... since the human race hasn't evolved in one way or another in the past 100 years or so, to my knowledge. What has evolved are the race courses that Offshore has embraced, primarily for the political reasons that i previously enumerated, and the resulting loss of large fleets of evenly matched hulls at these races. Couple this to a model that allows one to "buy" a class, or cap your speed, while assuring some form of trophy/championship to just about everyone and, naturally, a different, in some cases less competitive, type of human being is attracted to the sport. Certainly the number of racers has dwindled with each passing series of "changes"....and, like the Obama administration, the facts have not deterred the obtuse, from enlisting the ignorant to accelerate in the wrong direction.
I do agree that (some) of today's racers are risking their lives in ways undreamed of in the old days....but what does that prove about the" new" model other than that it is both more dangerous and less popular than ever?
In closing may I respectfully remind you that Obama's strongest base lies with the young...and that your Quixotic crusade (look it up) to battle myopic closed mindedness might best be started at home?
One last thing...... Its spelled Odell...with 2 L's.
See you at OFF....
T2x
10-11-2011, 05:34 PM
#93
Registered
The whole idea of closer closed course acing was to let the fans keep the racers in view. I think the viewing areas need to expand on this further. We need to follow the other forms of racing and sports. Pa broadcasting that you might even be able to hear along with arial feeds broadcasted on large screens with commentary and replays. Cater to the fans so they can be closer to and kept interest in the action. Look at some of these on board GOPRo video feeds, the fans need to see that part of the racing. The sport is dying partialy because the attraction is the party not necessary the racing.
10-11-2011, 06:55 PM
#94
Correspondent
CorrespondentThread Starter
My Baja analysis makes perfect sense in that an Indy Car or Formula 1 car would disintegrate after a few miles on the Baja course. I think that so many people are used to seeing Offshore style boats on circle courses that the assumption that they belong there has become fact. At what point does the absurdity hit home?. Perhaps we should put a 40-50 foot MTI on a 1/2 mile stock outboard course to drive the point home. No true Offshore builder in his right mind would emphasize his hull's ability to turn on a 1 pin tunnel boat course and a heads up competition between a Champ boat and any Offshore cat on such a course would make my point inarguable.
This debate clearly points out the perspective differences between generations. The younger players know all about today and a little about yesterday. The older generations lived in both and therefore have a clarity that spans multiple time periods. When Offshore hulls were created the goal was to defeat big water.... The sanctioning bodies brought them closer to shore to create better visability...but nothing was done to the designs to make them turn any better other than the creation of safety cockpits to protect the occupants from the higher speed crashes and barrel rolls resulting from shorter, calmer courses. Fact is the smaller the course, the smaller the hull should be to get around tighter corners. Smaller hulls also accelerate faster for short straightaways...hence an Unlimited hydro will defeat any Offshore hull at Detroit...and a Champ boat will defeat any Unlimited Hydro at Bay City...etc. Add to that the simple fact that one man with a wheel and foot throttle will beat two separate drivers around a short closed course (due to reaction times and eye/hand/foot coordination) and the contradiction of big hulls on little courses comes into sharper focus. The final issue has to do with common sense. If you are going to put Offshore hulls into tight confines that don't require a second (or third!) occupant ....why risk the additional lives in the event of the inevitable spinouts, collisions and assorted mayhem resulting from the conditions?
The fact that many people have enjoyed the regional races in bays and lakes is a good point....but... in truth a different, smaller hull model is more competitive, handles better and is at least as entertaining for the same audiences. In fact the regional races had a huge SOB turnout and smaller boats in general than the bigger true Offshore National race events.
Look, The current model has its ardent supporters, and I get that. If I had a substantial investment in an ultralight, 50 foot cat with uber power, I sure wouldn't want to delaminate the damn thing 50 miles offshore either! But that's not the point. We are talking about endurance...... real endurance..... and some existing hulls (and drivers) might not be up for the challenge....But I bet a whole new breed of racer is out there who would love to take a crack at it....even if they are "Old school".
T2x
This debate clearly points out the perspective differences between generations. The younger players know all about today and a little about yesterday. The older generations lived in both and therefore have a clarity that spans multiple time periods. When Offshore hulls were created the goal was to defeat big water.... The sanctioning bodies brought them closer to shore to create better visability...but nothing was done to the designs to make them turn any better other than the creation of safety cockpits to protect the occupants from the higher speed crashes and barrel rolls resulting from shorter, calmer courses. Fact is the smaller the course, the smaller the hull should be to get around tighter corners. Smaller hulls also accelerate faster for short straightaways...hence an Unlimited hydro will defeat any Offshore hull at Detroit...and a Champ boat will defeat any Unlimited Hydro at Bay City...etc. Add to that the simple fact that one man with a wheel and foot throttle will beat two separate drivers around a short closed course (due to reaction times and eye/hand/foot coordination) and the contradiction of big hulls on little courses comes into sharper focus. The final issue has to do with common sense. If you are going to put Offshore hulls into tight confines that don't require a second (or third!) occupant ....why risk the additional lives in the event of the inevitable spinouts, collisions and assorted mayhem resulting from the conditions?
The fact that many people have enjoyed the regional races in bays and lakes is a good point....but... in truth a different, smaller hull model is more competitive, handles better and is at least as entertaining for the same audiences. In fact the regional races had a huge SOB turnout and smaller boats in general than the bigger true Offshore National race events.
Look, The current model has its ardent supporters, and I get that. If I had a substantial investment in an ultralight, 50 foot cat with uber power, I sure wouldn't want to delaminate the damn thing 50 miles offshore either! But that's not the point. We are talking about endurance...... real endurance..... and some existing hulls (and drivers) might not be up for the challenge....But I bet a whole new breed of racer is out there who would love to take a crack at it....even if they are "Old school".
T2x
Drum roll please ... heavier. Why? Bigger power that lives. In a recent interview, he told me he used to have to build his boats lighter because big power that lived wasn't readily available.
Don't believe me? Ask him. So I'm reasonably sure that a Skater 40 today could handle anything a Skater from "back in the day" could handle.
I would not describe Mystic or MTI as "ultra light." Look at the weight specs and you'll find that they are not far off from those of Skater. Are they "delaminating" at a higher rate? Show me the numbers.
What is taking its toll on hulls are the forces that come with today's higher speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that today's race boats are not significantly faster than yesterday's. I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist (my father, as it happens is both) and the forces exerted on running surfaces are exponentially greater at 130 mph and beyond than they are at 90 mph. Greater speeds, I would argue, are the reasons for the failures you speak of.
So Mystics and MTIs can handle endurance. And by the way, while an 8- to 12-mile course is smaller than a 100-mile roundtrip-course, obviously, it is hardly a "half-mile" course. A 12-mile course is large enough, in my view, for a 50-foot cat. At 120 mph, it would take that cat six minutes per lap. You are describing today's courses as if they were sprint car tracks. They're just not.
My larger point is: Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be a hybrid? For a boat such as Miss Geico, there is one major impediment to endurance racing—safety. The boat can outrun most helicopters with the exception of a Blackhawk, and how many of those do you see flying divers? If the boat had an accident out at sea, the guys would be there a long time before help arrived.
10-11-2011, 07:46 PM
#95
Registered
This kind of reminds me of the old school indy cars vs. todays version. Heavy, somewhat simple vs. lighter and very high tech.
If it's about drivers would todays drivers compete with the A.J's and Parnelli's and Boyd's in their Offys ? I think the new guys would smoke the oldtimes !
ed
If it's about drivers would todays drivers compete with the A.J's and Parnelli's and Boyd's in their Offys ? I think the new guys would smoke the oldtimes !
ed
10-12-2011, 12:09 AM
#96
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Completely Nationwide
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Quick question that you should know the answer to: Is Peter Hledin building his pleasure and racing cats heavier or lighter than he used to?
Drum roll please ... heavier. Why? Bigger power that lives. In a recent interview, he told me he used to have to build his boats lighter because big power that lived wasn't readily available.
Don't believe me? Ask him. So I'm reasonably sure that a Skater 40 today could handle anything a Skater from "back in the day" could handle.
I would not describe Mystic or MTI as "ultra light." Look at the weight specs and you'll find that they are not far off from those of Skater. Are they "delaminating" at a higher rate? Show me the numbers.
What is taking its toll on hulls are the forces that come with today's higher speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that today's race boats are not significantly faster than yesterday's. I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist (my father, as it happens is both) and the forces exerted on running surfaces are exponentially greater at 130 mph and beyond than they are at 90 mph. Greater speeds, I would argue, are the reasons for the failures you speak of.
So Mystics and MTIs can handle endurance. And by the way, while an 8- to 12-mile course is smaller than a 100-mile roundtrip-course, obviously, it is hardly a "half-mile" course. A 12-mile course is large enough, in my view, for a 50-foot cat. At 120 mph, it would take that cat six minutes per lap. You are describing today's courses as if they were sprint car tracks. They're just not.
My larger point is: Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be a hybrid? For a boat such as Miss Geico, there is one major impediment to endurance racing—safety. The boat can outrun most helicopters with the exception of a Blackhawk, and how many of those do you see flying divers? If the boat had an accident out at sea, the guys would be there a long time before help arrived.
Drum roll please ... heavier. Why? Bigger power that lives. In a recent interview, he told me he used to have to build his boats lighter because big power that lived wasn't readily available.
Don't believe me? Ask him. So I'm reasonably sure that a Skater 40 today could handle anything a Skater from "back in the day" could handle.
I would not describe Mystic or MTI as "ultra light." Look at the weight specs and you'll find that they are not far off from those of Skater. Are they "delaminating" at a higher rate? Show me the numbers.
What is taking its toll on hulls are the forces that come with today's higher speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that today's race boats are not significantly faster than yesterday's. I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist (my father, as it happens is both) and the forces exerted on running surfaces are exponentially greater at 130 mph and beyond than they are at 90 mph. Greater speeds, I would argue, are the reasons for the failures you speak of.
So Mystics and MTIs can handle endurance. And by the way, while an 8- to 12-mile course is smaller than a 100-mile roundtrip-course, obviously, it is hardly a "half-mile" course. A 12-mile course is large enough, in my view, for a 50-foot cat. At 120 mph, it would take that cat six minutes per lap. You are describing today's courses as if they were sprint car tracks. They're just not.
My larger point is: Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be a hybrid? For a boat such as Miss Geico, there is one major impediment to endurance racing—safety. The boat can outrun most helicopters with the exception of a Blackhawk, and how many of those do you see flying divers? If the boat had an accident out at sea, the guys would be there a long time before help arrived.
Matt,
You make some valid points, when it comes to boat construction. However, one variable you left out is Sea Conditions, in open ocean racing. Mike A and his APBA Offshore LLC use to call races off due to rough conditions. I'm still not sure what kind of "Offshore Racing" that is. Rough Seas and the abuse these boats take because of them can leave even the best builders scratching their heads. Fast is the name of the game, as well as stamina.
Most of the reasons why I go to events is the atmosphere and party lifestyle. The "man or team versus machine and the elements" is the testament to courage, stamina, and sheer will. What I am trying to say is, I show up for the atmosphere to be in the presense of others that I can relate to. I can't relate well with those in the current "Offshore Racing" community. The open ocean or open water format is something that most, if not, all boaters has done at one time or another. Meaning, racing from point A to point B and sometimes back. Not setting up a course with 5 or 10 turns.
Brad,
Your races are great and the venue is wonderful. However, I do not agree with your scheduling dates. My personal opinion is, that, it should be held earlier in year, like around March. So that it doesn't occur during the higher insurance hurricane season.
BA
Last edited by BattleCry; 10-12-2011 at 12:19 AM. Reason: Brain faster than hands.
10-12-2011, 12:37 AM
#97
Registered
This kind of reminds me of the old school indy cars vs. todays version. Heavy, somewhat simple vs. lighter and very high tech.
If it's about drivers would todays drivers compete with the A.J's and Parnelli's and Boyd's in their Offys ? I think the new guys would smoke the oldtimes !
ed
If it's about drivers would todays drivers compete with the A.J's and Parnelli's and Boyd's in their Offys ? I think the new guys would smoke the oldtimes !
ed
How many of the new guys could smoke AJ, Parnelli or Mario in a Sprint car on Dirt
not many am sure it,, if any of them could,, then or now.
You're talking two different racing types,, two diffrent types of cars.
How many of the New guys even know how to set up a race car,, let alone build one.
a few years from now the "new guys" then will smoke the old new guys from today
nothing wrong with running laps along the beach ,, but if your going to call it offshore racing,, then make them run a lap off shore.. have the best of both worlds of racing.
I enjoy all racing and seen most inperson
thank you
Jim\
Last edited by dammmagnum; 10-12-2011 at 12:57 AM.
10-12-2011, 03:14 AM
#98
Registered
Couple of comments if I may......
As a 52 yr old spectator:
1. When they introduced turbines to Unlimited hydros I stopped watching. Yes they were faster, yes they were more dependable.
They made no noise in a class that was known for the sound of V-12 airplane engines that rattled the ground under your feet.
2. To me the term "Offshore" means ROUGH water and "offshore" not a river, not a bay, not a harbor etc.
You want to run 200 mph "offshore" boats on an oval course step up and run w/the Unlimited hydros.
3. I've followed offshore to some extent my entire life. When it went inshore I lost track of drivers names as well as boat mfgs names. Where are the Bob Magoon's, Sandy Satulo's, Betty Cook etc, etc. Why/how did they become legends??
It was by challenging, surviving and defeating life threatening conditions that changed in front of their eyes and scared the bejesus out of all of us.
Same for the hull/engine mfgs.
I often wonder if any of these folks would even mess with racing in it's current configuration.
4. Every race I've been to I've ended up commentating for the spectators around me so they could under stand all the classes.
Less is better on that one.
Yes the Miss Geico is out front and winning but uhm it's the only boat in it's class.
As a 52 yr old X boat racer: (I know 9 yrs in kneel down don't mean much to a lot of you guys but most of us beat on our own wheels, built our own motors and many even the boats)
1. I have seen more classes come/go than I care to state. Some were good ideas that just never got off the ground. Some/many were written to keep one mfg out of anothers class. Mostly the healthy, strong classes have remained unchanged for yrs.
Want to see one fail? Make it a spec class.
Want to send spectators to the bathrooms? Spec classes.
2. As a racer, am I going to a race to compete against the best or to impress the spectator fleet? Is it a sport or a business? Yes I know it can switch back and forth but as soon as you try to make boat racing a business, everything changes.
3. Do you think the legends mentioned above did what they did to impress the spectator fleet or make it to the cover of Power Boat or because they wanted to conquer something that few in the world could?
4. If the current version of racing has been as good as it was then why have we not had replacements for the legends mentioned above? Where are they?
5. IMO, they saw the challenge, lived for it, mastered it and their legend was born. Along the way, a sport named "offshore" was born. I don't think it happened the other way around.
To climb in a 50' boat and go in circles for 45 mins........, uhm no.
John Wayne was John Wayne. He wasn't a cowboy or an actor he was John Wayne. Was Don Aronow just a boat racer/builder? No, he was Don Aronow.
Ah, I feel better.
Carry on.
As a 52 yr old spectator:
1. When they introduced turbines to Unlimited hydros I stopped watching. Yes they were faster, yes they were more dependable.
They made no noise in a class that was known for the sound of V-12 airplane engines that rattled the ground under your feet.
2. To me the term "Offshore" means ROUGH water and "offshore" not a river, not a bay, not a harbor etc.
You want to run 200 mph "offshore" boats on an oval course step up and run w/the Unlimited hydros.
3. I've followed offshore to some extent my entire life. When it went inshore I lost track of drivers names as well as boat mfgs names. Where are the Bob Magoon's, Sandy Satulo's, Betty Cook etc, etc. Why/how did they become legends??
It was by challenging, surviving and defeating life threatening conditions that changed in front of their eyes and scared the bejesus out of all of us.
Same for the hull/engine mfgs.
I often wonder if any of these folks would even mess with racing in it's current configuration.
4. Every race I've been to I've ended up commentating for the spectators around me so they could under stand all the classes.
Less is better on that one.
Yes the Miss Geico is out front and winning but uhm it's the only boat in it's class.
As a 52 yr old X boat racer: (I know 9 yrs in kneel down don't mean much to a lot of you guys but most of us beat on our own wheels, built our own motors and many even the boats)
1. I have seen more classes come/go than I care to state. Some were good ideas that just never got off the ground. Some/many were written to keep one mfg out of anothers class. Mostly the healthy, strong classes have remained unchanged for yrs.
Want to see one fail? Make it a spec class.
Want to send spectators to the bathrooms? Spec classes.
2. As a racer, am I going to a race to compete against the best or to impress the spectator fleet? Is it a sport or a business? Yes I know it can switch back and forth but as soon as you try to make boat racing a business, everything changes.
3. Do you think the legends mentioned above did what they did to impress the spectator fleet or make it to the cover of Power Boat or because they wanted to conquer something that few in the world could?
4. If the current version of racing has been as good as it was then why have we not had replacements for the legends mentioned above? Where are they?
5. IMO, they saw the challenge, lived for it, mastered it and their legend was born. Along the way, a sport named "offshore" was born. I don't think it happened the other way around.
To climb in a 50' boat and go in circles for 45 mins........, uhm no.
John Wayne was John Wayne. He wasn't a cowboy or an actor he was John Wayne. Was Don Aronow just a boat racer/builder? No, he was Don Aronow.
Ah, I feel better.
Carry on.
Last edited by Twin O/B Sonic; 10-12-2011 at 03:25 AM.
10-12-2011, 07:18 AM
#99
Registered
Couple of comments if I may......
As a 52 yr old spectator:
1. When they introduced turbines to Unlimited hydros I stopped watching. Yes they were faster, yes they were more dependable.
They made no noise in a class that was known for the sound of V-12 airplane engines that rattled the ground under your feet.
2. To me the term "Offshore" means ROUGH water and "offshore" not a river, not a bay, not a harbor etc.
You want to run 200 mph "offshore" boats on an oval course step up and run w/the Unlimited hydros.
3. I've followed offshore to some extent my entire life. When it went inshore I lost track of drivers names as well as boat mfgs names. Where are the Bob Magoon's, Sandy Satulo's, Betty Cook etc, etc. Why/how did they become legends??
It was by challenging, surviving and defeating life threatening conditions that changed in front of their eyes and scared the bejesus out of all of us.
Same for the hull/engine mfgs.
I often wonder if any of these folks would even mess with racing in it's current configuration.
4. Every race I've been to I've ended up commentating for the spectators around me so they could under stand all the classes.
Less is better on that one.
Yes the Miss Geico is out front and winning but uhm it's the only boat in it's class.
As a 52 yr old X boat racer: (I know 9 yrs in kneel down don't mean much to a lot of you guys but most of us beat on our own wheels, built our own motors and many even the boats)
1. I have seen more classes come/go than I care to state. Some were good ideas that just never got off the ground. Some/many were written to keep one mfg out of anothers class. Mostly the healthy, strong classes have remained unchanged for yrs.
Want to see one fail? Make it a spec class.
Want to send spectators to the bathrooms? Spec classes.
2. As a racer, am I going to a race to compete against the best or to impress the spectator fleet? Is it a sport or a business? Yes I know it can switch back and forth but as soon as you try to make boat racing a business, everything changes.
3. Do you think the legends mentioned above did what they did to impress the spectator fleet or make it to the cover of Power Boat or because they wanted to conquer something that few in the world could?
4. If the current version of racing has been as good as it was then why have we not had replacements for the legends mentioned above? Where are they?
5. IMO, they saw the challenge, lived for it, mastered it and their legend was born. Along the way, a sport named "offshore" was born. I don't think it happened the other way around.
To climb in a 50' boat and go in circles for 45 mins........, uhm no.
John Wayne was John Wayne. He wasn't a cowboy or an actor he was John Wayne. Was Don Aronow just a boat racer/builder? No, he was Don Aronow.
Ah, I feel better.
Carry on.
As a 52 yr old spectator:
1. When they introduced turbines to Unlimited hydros I stopped watching. Yes they were faster, yes they were more dependable.
They made no noise in a class that was known for the sound of V-12 airplane engines that rattled the ground under your feet.
2. To me the term "Offshore" means ROUGH water and "offshore" not a river, not a bay, not a harbor etc.
You want to run 200 mph "offshore" boats on an oval course step up and run w/the Unlimited hydros.
3. I've followed offshore to some extent my entire life. When it went inshore I lost track of drivers names as well as boat mfgs names. Where are the Bob Magoon's, Sandy Satulo's, Betty Cook etc, etc. Why/how did they become legends??
It was by challenging, surviving and defeating life threatening conditions that changed in front of their eyes and scared the bejesus out of all of us.
Same for the hull/engine mfgs.
I often wonder if any of these folks would even mess with racing in it's current configuration.
4. Every race I've been to I've ended up commentating for the spectators around me so they could under stand all the classes.
Less is better on that one.
Yes the Miss Geico is out front and winning but uhm it's the only boat in it's class.
As a 52 yr old X boat racer: (I know 9 yrs in kneel down don't mean much to a lot of you guys but most of us beat on our own wheels, built our own motors and many even the boats)
1. I have seen more classes come/go than I care to state. Some were good ideas that just never got off the ground. Some/many were written to keep one mfg out of anothers class. Mostly the healthy, strong classes have remained unchanged for yrs.
Want to see one fail? Make it a spec class.
Want to send spectators to the bathrooms? Spec classes.
2. As a racer, am I going to a race to compete against the best or to impress the spectator fleet? Is it a sport or a business? Yes I know it can switch back and forth but as soon as you try to make boat racing a business, everything changes.
3. Do you think the legends mentioned above did what they did to impress the spectator fleet or make it to the cover of Power Boat or because they wanted to conquer something that few in the world could?
4. If the current version of racing has been as good as it was then why have we not had replacements for the legends mentioned above? Where are they?
5. IMO, they saw the challenge, lived for it, mastered it and their legend was born. Along the way, a sport named "offshore" was born. I don't think it happened the other way around.
To climb in a 50' boat and go in circles for 45 mins........, uhm no.
John Wayne was John Wayne. He wasn't a cowboy or an actor he was John Wayne. Was Don Aronow just a boat racer/builder? No, he was Don Aronow.
Ah, I feel better.
Carry on.
BTW Kneel down boats with canvas decks were very cool, I loved every minute in them.
10-12-2011, 07:22 AM
#100
Allergic to Nonsense
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Granite Quarry, NC
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Quick question that you should know the answer to: Is Peter Hledin building his pleasure and racing cats heavier or lighter than he used to?
Drum roll please ... heavier. Why? Bigger power that lives. In a recent interview, he told me he used to have to build his boats lighter because big power that lived wasn't readily available.
Don't believe me? Ask him. So I'm reasonably sure that a Skater 40 today could handle anything a Skater from "back in the day" could handle.
I would not describe Mystic or MTI as "ultra light." Look at the weight specs and you'll find that they are not far off from those of Skater. Are they "delaminating" at a higher rate? Show me the numbers.
What is taking its toll on hulls are the forces that come with today's higher speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that today's race boats are not significantly faster than yesterday's. I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist (my father, as it happens is both) and the forces exerted on running surfaces are exponentially greater at 130 mph and beyond than they are at 90 mph. Greater speeds, I would argue, are the reasons for the failures you speak of.
So Mystics and MTIs can handle endurance. And by the way, while an 8- to 12-mile course is smaller than a 100-mile roundtrip-course, obviously, it is hardly a "half-mile" course. A 12-mile course is large enough, in my view, for a 50-foot cat. At 120 mph, it would take that cat six minutes per lap. You are describing today's courses as if they were sprint car tracks. They're just not.
My larger point is: Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be a hybrid? For a boat such as Miss Geico, there is one major impediment to endurance racing—safety. The boat can outrun most helicopters with the exception of a Blackhawk, and how many of those do you see flying divers? If the boat had an accident out at sea, the guys would be there a long time before help arrived.
Drum roll please ... heavier. Why? Bigger power that lives. In a recent interview, he told me he used to have to build his boats lighter because big power that lived wasn't readily available.
Don't believe me? Ask him. So I'm reasonably sure that a Skater 40 today could handle anything a Skater from "back in the day" could handle.
I would not describe Mystic or MTI as "ultra light." Look at the weight specs and you'll find that they are not far off from those of Skater. Are they "delaminating" at a higher rate? Show me the numbers.
What is taking its toll on hulls are the forces that come with today's higher speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that today's race boats are not significantly faster than yesterday's. I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist (my father, as it happens is both) and the forces exerted on running surfaces are exponentially greater at 130 mph and beyond than they are at 90 mph. Greater speeds, I would argue, are the reasons for the failures you speak of.
So Mystics and MTIs can handle endurance. And by the way, while an 8- to 12-mile course is smaller than a 100-mile roundtrip-course, obviously, it is hardly a "half-mile" course. A 12-mile course is large enough, in my view, for a 50-foot cat. At 120 mph, it would take that cat six minutes per lap. You are describing today's courses as if they were sprint car tracks. They're just not.
My larger point is: Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be a hybrid? For a boat such as Miss Geico, there is one major impediment to endurance racing—safety. The boat can outrun most helicopters with the exception of a Blackhawk, and how many of those do you see flying divers? If the boat had an accident out at sea, the guys would be there a long time before help arrived.
None of the above is addressing the point. Peter Hledin ( whose products I steadfastly endorse) built boats back when the courses were 150 miles long and ran outside the reef at Key West...He also built boats when they raced on the Great Lakes as compared to Lake Winnepesaukee. Certainly he has taken those lessons to heart and builds accordingly. On the other hand your point about stresses increasing exponentially as speeds increase certainly explains why damn near any laminate will disintegrate at a specific (unneccesary) speed. However, the point is if you put a hull on a 150-250 mile course in big seas (where an Offshore race boat belongs) speeds are naturally reduced due to fuel load, engine durability, and simple mother nature. You don't need tricky rules, multiple classes, GPS thingamabobs, exotic powerplants, or much of anything outside of skill, setup, personal conditioning and the true desire to compete. A $75,000 paint job won't get you a thing, your Porsche....means nothing, and the more hp you try and cram into your mega hull the shorter your engine's life span. It is the perfect self leveling playing field. Most of the major successful car/motorcycle/boat racing organizations have limited speeds in one way or the other....to prevent even the most sophisticated designs from exceeding the limits of adhesion, safety cells, and human organ parameters. Yet Offshore has ignored all of this in favor of "stadium racing" and "shootouts", wherein oversized hulls with obscene HP are "displayed" at speeds well over the limits stated above (risking and , too often, losing lives in the process) in spite of the fact that none of this blowviated hardware can make it from Miami to Nassau or around Long Island (the birthplaces of Offshore racing). I agree that helicopters and rescue are key in any race. 6-8 foot seas will hold speeds down to where the hydraulic cockpit disasters we have seen will be reduced in force and the new technologies will have much greater protective success giving significant precious time to increase the survival odds while allowing rescue crews to reach the scene.
Certainly the builders you mention can put together a hull capable of finishing endurance events (or copying someone who can
), but add a pair of 1750 HP engines (designed for rail dragsters) with a ton of bling, and what you wind up with is the boating version of a funny car....good for a couple of spurts...but it sure isn't an Offshore Racer.Finally, you are over estimating today's courses as well. The Detroit Gold Cup course is 2.5 miles around. The Great South Bay course is about 5 miles, but parts of it run in 3-6 feet of water. Even the longer courses have turns that are (intentionally?) radiused too tightly for a boat over 25 feet in length...... a 150 plus mph cat of 40-50 feet in length needs a minimum 1/2 mile turning radius (1 mile+ for a u turn)...to be safe.....but today's courses offer a fraction of that, which has little to do with spectator friendliness and a lot to do with "deck to deck" nonsense. I commented on the OPA boats flying into the spectator fleet in Patchogue a few years ago precisely because the turning radii were excessively narrow.
This is about it for me on this topic. I hope that the "new-old model" finds its footing, and I believe the short course model has already found its level. While I truly wish the competitors in each arena whatever success they earn, the concept of a "compromised" (dumbed down) "marriage" between the two will simply dilute the overall product. It's time that the sport stops catering to every point of view. Managing from fear never succeeds, and pie in the sky diplomacy has led to more wars than I can count.
T2x
Last edited by T2x; 10-12-2011 at 09:36 AM.
