|
Originally Posted by beckmwi
(Post 4400798)
Michael Peters- Professional boat builder article http://proboat.com/wp-content/upload...ower127low.pdf
"we were asked by Cigarette Racing Team (Opa Locka, Florida) to step the bottoms of four different models ranging in size from 30' to 42' (9.1m to 12.8m). Each of those required us to work with the existing molds. We developed step inserts, and each of the four models picked up 7–8 mph (11.2–12.8 kmh). To my mind, those boats offer perfect before-and-after examples of what a well-designed step can achieve. Here’s a stepped Cigarette [23, 24]." |
Originally Posted by jbraun2828
(Post 4400891)
I agree it's hard to get a true comparison. How about this though, if you put 900's in a stepped 46 it will easily run over a hundred. Now put those 900's in a straight bottom 38 and I bet it doesn't hit 100. The 46 is significantly heavier even without a full cabin and is way faster so the steps must be doing something. I know it's not apples to apples.
|
Originally Posted by cigrocket
(Post 4400985)
It's true, my 1993 with 875hp and drives x dimension as high as the sky only ran 98. I could have squeezed the last 2 out but i sold the boat. Prop change etc.
|
Run high 80's with stepped 35 and warmed up 500s. Ran 91 with light fuel.
|
Originally Posted by cigrocket
(Post 4400988)
Run high 80's with stepped 35 and warmed up 500s. Ran 91 with light fuel.
|
Originally Posted by Zero Patience
(Post 4400996)
But not in the rough.... And not for long, in a bravo boat
|
Originally Posted by Zero Patience
(Post 4400895)
Just my opinion, I have ran with a lot of TS guns, and when it gets 4 foot plus, windy, raining, and 100 miles to go, I would rather be in my old, heavy, straight bottom, with big drives.
It was pretty hairy. I not a good judge of how big the water was but I sure am glad it wasn't any bigger. |
Originally Posted by 302Sport
(Post 4400813)
You would have to do two other things to show the impact of the steps, and only the steps: Make sure the stepped and non stepped boats weight the same and have exactly the same X dimension. If these two things were done, I would be surprised if the steps added even 7mph.
I am still a firm beleiver that the old flat bottom guns weigh a bit more than the new ones. I pointed out several key differences in another thread: 1. Steps reduce overall hull material weight 2. Newer TG's have barebone cabins 3. Newer TG's seem to have less material layup especially in the cowling area. I've seen a few new TG's have quite a bit of cracking. 4. Newer boats only utilize 1 fuel tank Whether it makes a difference who knows. I know there has been quite a bit of discussion on which one handles the rough better. TS owners say they fly better. Flat bottom guys say weight and flat bottoms crush waves. Who knows. Just go enjoy what you have!!! |
Originally Posted by 1MOSES1
(Post 4401129)
Agreed. At least in this particular application. I do tend to think other hulls gain more from steps than top guns. A good example was the RR vs TG.
I am still a firm beleiver that the old flat bottom guns weigh a bit more than the new ones. I pointed out several key differences in another thread: 1. Steps reduce overall hull material weight 2. Newer TG's have barebone cabins 3. Newer TG's seem to have less material layup especially in the cowling area. I've seen a few new TG's have quite a bit of cracking. 4. Newer boats only utilize 1 fuel tank Whether it makes a difference who knows. I know there has been quite a bit of discussion on which one handles the rough better. TS owners say they fly better. Flat bottom guys say weight and flat bottoms crush waves. Who knows. Just go enjoy what you have!!! |
Those are among the very reasons why I'm anxiously anticipating this spring.. + 16 cylinders harmonizing rhythmically running down the river on the way to sea.. Mmmmm..
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.