Bigger motors over comes all that

My take is if a boat company can design a boat that goes 90+ with "stockish" power and market it and sell "speed/$$" a fast boat with less power is more profitable.

But in reality it is good we have choices....

IN some ways I wish steps were never brought back in vogue. If nothing else they break up the lines of a boat....

But I am a knob...been here and done this...wish some companys offered 2 versions.

Yup bigger motors...like 1050 Sterlings and a 42' non-stepped
Cigarette. Why can't I give this up?

Yes, Hydrocruiser, this uses the exact same formula. The constants are usually called Crouch constants, named after the guy who came up with the formula, who was also a very famous designer of gold cup and other high speed powerboats in the first half of the 1900's.

By collecting data from boat tests, I find the following constants. NOTE that the constants are sensitive to weight, and as fas as I could tell, all the weights quoted in all boat tests are provided by the manufacturer -- the boats were not weighed by the publication doing the test. Therefore, these numbers are not precise:

1992 Fountain 47, no step: 209
2000 Fountain 47, two big steps: 277
2006 Fountain 47, slightly improved bottom: 284

The early boat needs 50% more power to reach the same speed. That also mean 50% more fuel.

Very similar big double stepped bottoms:
2001+ Fountain 42: 267
2000+ Formula 383: 267
2000+ Cigarette 42 Tiger: 258

My boat, single but pretty big step:
2000 Fountain 32 Sportfish Cruiser: 245

Non-stepped bottoms:
Baja 442: 237
Excalibur 47: 236

Big fat tubby powerboats:
Cruiser 405: 200

Playing with the numbers to compare my fuel burn this weekend with a theoretical identical boat with no step, and two steps:
No step: $275
One step: $235 <- actual
Two step: $215

If it's not fast enough change pulleys!
Dan