Sideskraft

As many of you know I recently acquired a very nice '84 F3LS. After spending a couple outings in Lake Michigan, it came as no surprise that when it comes to riding smoothly and dry, size matters. The wife wasn't impressed when we got a tiny bit of air going with the waves and launched off what was probably a 4-5 footer. It does pound a bit when landing into an oncoming wave -- not having trim tabs might be a factor. The low profile windshield looks great but doesn't cut the wind much and allows the water to splash in the face sometimes (I don't mind -- the wife does somewhat).

I've always had a thing for the 233, and based on what I've read on various websites, owners of that boat are really impressed with its ride and handling in the rough, and it has a solid reputation with a big following.

My question is, will those two extra feet and the "magic design" of the 233 give me a noticeably better ride than my F3?

I'm hoping that a few of you out there have done some wave jumping in both of these boats and can compare the two and give me your perspective.

Thanks!

cash68

Replacing the wife with a younger model will provide a better ride and less complaining.

Top Banana

This 233 was Don's original race boat called ....The Cigarette.

HTRDLNCN

the 233 will ride better but no 23ft boat is gonna be "smooth" in real 4-5 footers but if you have to run that size boat the 233 is probably the best ride out there..
We used my buddies 233 quite a bit this summer,
his wife is usually scared and hangs on for dear life on any boat yet
she actually relaxed enough to enjoy the ride, thats one of the major reasons he bought it
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._7147721_n.jpg

JP-8

I think it will. Although the F-3 is a fantastic hull in its own right.

Aside from the extra 2 feet (which is quite significant), the design of the 233 really is magic.

The 233 (and later Donzi 28) incorporates some specific principals that have been all but abandoned in modern boat design.

Jim Wynne and Walt Walters borrowed heavily from Ray Hunt's original Deep Vee concept; keeping the full entry and flared bow, while carrying the deadrise further aft. Even the lifting strakes are uniquely positioned to allow the entry to cut through the swells.

I consider this boat to be the ancestor of the 233. It was designed by Hunt for a client in 1949. Named "Sea Blitz", it was powered by a 1500 HP Packard PT boat engine.



From the Hunt website:

"Ray told the story of running with Olin Stephens and clients on a sales demo. In a nasty following sea at high speed, Ray purposely left the helm untended to “tie his shoe.” He let the boat run harmlessly downwind on her own - and claimed he scared them all to prove his point, which was that whereas most boats of the day would have broached immediately, Sea Blitz did not even need a hand on the helm."





The family resemblances are quite striking.






A recent trailerboat article on the 233:

"It’s a pleasure to sit beside the big deep-vee and watch the design work in a swell. The boat sits well with a bow-high attitude and for the most part it rides comfortably on its chines at the rear. But it’s when the swell gets up that you really see the rest of the boat work. The high, prominent chines work beautifully with the deep entry to cushion the sea. Spray is deflected for a very dry ride, while under the boat, water is channeled off the strakes which increases lift and stability.

It’s big sea conditions that necessitate the huge flared bow and in my opinion the 233 Formula will allow you to tackle more adverse conditions than most any other boat of similar size. The hull tracks straight and true, a great relief when covering long distances as there’s nothing worse than fighting the steering as well as the sea."


The 233 is revered for good reason. It's a perfect example of designers "getting it right the first time".

The hull’s reputation for seaworthiness is unquestionable, even half a decade after its original design.

If only Formula would dust off the molds (if they even still have them) and start producing the Interceptor again.











You just can't go wrong with one of these.


Here is one for sale at a ridiculously good price.


Definitely worth looking into.

All that being stated, your F-3 is a fabulous boat. I love the low profile windshield, and crisp lines.

Formula hasn't produced anything comparable to the F-3 or 233 since their production ceased.

I don't hold much hope that these types of boats will ever be produced again in the kind of numbers that they once were. A real shame, but it just makes restoring one all the more justifiable. I have some rather extensive modifications planned for my Interceptor.

One unfortunate thing about the Interceptor/LS configuration is the fact that the boats were decidedly underpowered with a single 260 and alpha drive.

That same article from trailerboat:

"40 years ago I remember hearing an old salt say, “you need a minimum of 300hp for the Formula to work”, and nothing’s changed. "

The 502 HO in my Interceptor is a perfect match for the hull, and I wouldn't even consider leaving the stock 260/alpha setup in there for very long.

Just something to consider.


In any case, you certainly wouldn't be disappointed with the 233.

It far exceeded my expectations.

Sideskraft

Cash - you're probably right, but if I can believe what almost all of my family and friends tell me, she's a keeper (I had to cross the Atlantic to find her). She loves driving the Sea Doos and I think she'll at least give my 700hp 18ft v-drive runnerbottom a try.

HTRD - thanks for the input.

JP - wow, you're obviously a dyed-in-the-wool 233 fanatic! That Sea Blitz sure has similar lines to the 233 hull. I've never seen a small pleasure boat with the same "angle of attack" as the 233 -- almost tug boatish.

I already made plans to see the 233 tomorrow on my way to a firemen's festival in northern MI. If it looks nice and if it doesn't appear to have any moisture in the wood issues, I probably will pick it up. With the factory 454, TRS/trans and trim tabs, along with trailer, there's a lot to like.

I have seen two 233s in person, one a '80 and the other '83. The newer one had a fiberglass floor with snap-in carpet (like my F3) and more modern fabrics/upholstery in the cabin, which we preferred. Are there any other prominent differences in the model year changes?

Certainly I'd love to have a nice mid-80s 302 with stout twin big blocks, but I have limited parking/storage space and I want to stay away from the added operating cost and maintenance of another engine. The launch ramp to Lake Michigan is 5 minutes away, and the nearest "nice" inland lake for decent boating is more than an hour away, so it makes sense to get the best boat for rough water.

I recall going lake trout fishing in Lake Superior with my grandpa back in the mid-70s. He had a late 60s 23ft Thunderbird, and he would make a big deal about the ride and seaworthiness of that boat. I never felt in danger in that boat, but I didn't have much to compare it to.

I wonder about the "rounded v-bottom" at the transom of the 233, as compared to the next generation Formulas (and serious offshore race hulls) that had a sharper v-bottom at the transom. All else being equal, one would deduce that the sharper v-bottom rides and cuts the waves better. The 255 had a similar rounded v-bottom. There must be other design factors at work that make the 233 ride so well. What's your take on this?

JP-8

I do indeed harbor a great appreciation for the 233.

That angle of attack has quite a bit to do with the 233's excellent rough water ability. The prominent entry increases the relative buoyancy of the bow. This helps it to run on the topside of the waves.

I look forward to reading what you think of it. Be sure to check the engine compartment bulkhead (behind the rear bench seat) for moisture. That is a marvelous package if it's all up to snuff.

The pictures look good, but then, they always do. I like the graphics.

Formula offered the 233 in the Interceptor configuration from '78 to '80. From '81 to '83 it was offered in the LS configuration.

The only differences I know of are the ones that you state. The Interceptor has a longer V-berth and the two wooden support pillars in place of the usual bulkhead.

The LS trim features a slightly shorter, more standard size V-berth in order to accommodate the addition of the freshwater sink to starboard and icebox to port. A standard forward bulkhead replaced the wooden pillars.

In '83, the one-piece high bow rail was changed for the more conventional two-piece low rise variant.

Beyond that, I am not aware of any structural differences.

I love the 302, also. But, like most Formulas, they were severely underpowered with just a pair of 330 HP Mercs. You really need at least 500 HP a side to get some agility, but twins do complicate the situation a bit.

Rough water ability should always be of paramount consideration.

The nice thing about the 233 is that it is such a practical boat to own. A lot of boat in a small package.


There weren't many boats as seaworthy as the 233 in those days. Your choices were somewhat limited, and there wasn't much that could match the 233's versatility at its price point.


A great point to consider. I believe that the rounded keel has something to do with with the excellent ride characteristics.

The round bottom actually translates into slightly less total deadrise of the running surface than the usual direct vee.

This smoother shape tends to stay on top of the waves instead of cutting down in by virtue of its width.

When the boat catches air, the reentry is comparatively soft because that round keel will displace the water in a more gradual manner with more pressure being applied consistently over a wider surface area. In effect, the water is being slowly squished to either side instead of being sliced rapidly.

This is very fascinating stuff to ponder. I intend to build a scale R/C model 233 to study the mechanics of its interaction with the water. There is much to be learned from these old hulls. They really are something special.

I can't help but be highly critical of modern boats with stepped hulls and integrated swim platforms, etc. It's amazing how marine design went from being elegantly nautical and refined in style during the 1940s to 1980s (lots of teak trim, crushed velour upholstery in the cabin), then became ridiculously gaudy and wild in the mid/late 90s to the present.

The charm simply isn't there anymore. The industry lost direction.

Of all the companies Aronow started, Magnum Marine is the sole exception. They still build hulls the old way, and their styling is timeless as ever.

Well, that's enough of my pointless ramblings for now.

Let us know how that 233 works out tomorrow.

78CIG24

iTrader: (2)

Sideskraft,

Since you are keeping the wife..BTW, probably a good call..LOL...,as mentioned the 233 hull would certainly be a better solution to the issues.

IF, you can't find the right deal on a 233 rigged the way you want..AND you like the way your F3 is rigged..I have a cost effective solution for you.

A few months ago I picked up a "Virgin" never rigged 233 Hull/Deck and was planning to make a "#16 The Cigarette" Tribute boat out of it. Well last month I came across a 78 Cig 24 Race boat and just couldn't resist it...so I am abandoning the "16" Tribute build.

Not sure of your mechanical/rigged experience, but it would be pretty easy to move all of the rigging from your F3 to the 233 hull and you would have the best of both worlds..at most likely the least cost (IF you do most of the rigging). AND, you would end up with a new hull/deck to boot with no worries of Rot etc.

Anyway, let me know if you have any interest, or make an offer.

Basically this hull deck was made in 1988, had some hardware installed, cabin area was all finished, hatch and port windows installed etc...then build was stopped and it has been stored inside for almost a decade.

Never even had a boat plug installed yet and never been in the water.

OH, a new, never used 77 gal aluminum fuel tank is already installed too! Will sell with or without the tank.

Just think, you could rig it all exactly how YOU want it from the ground up...CHEAP :-)







OH, it has these already upholstered rear seat bolster and engine cover too, still look new. I wasn't going to use them on the 16 build, but they go with it!!

HTRDLNCN

No prob, for some more info , his boat is a 1967 233 which is built heavier/tougher than the later models, with a stock 454/365Mag,21P Mirage and a Bravo drive it tops out at around 50mph..It has three fuel tanks with a total of 170gallons of fuel.. Not a speed demon but one hell of an all around family boat.

cool place to check out if your into 233s
http://formula233registry.ning.com/

HTRDLNCN

Company in Australia has the molds and has been building 233s:
http://www.edencraft.com.au/formula.html
http://formula233registry.ning.com/p...ource=activity