IF......and it's a big IF...steps provide minor speed increases to Vee bottoms...that is more than offset by the loss of directional stability and safety when turning.

As to Cat's..... I can say from first hand experience, that our designs were faster with one step rather than two. (That's why Conquests were faster than Shadows and Chris Cat's of the same weight and power). Further, the early tunnels had good success with simple slots ground into the running surface as opposed to actual steps. Perhaps, a non step cat is as fast or faster than a stepped bottom hull. The early tunnels had no steps at all. I recall the first steps were used more for acceleration than top end, and then only in the absolute flat water that tended to suck the sponsons down coming out of a turn. I know my Skater doesn't hit full speed until I get the steps clear. There is a case to be made for "4 pointing" or planing a hull forward, but even hydros are fastest when carrying their sponsons completely out of the water.

Obviously, the new designs are different than the original step designs of the 1930's...... They're made of fibreglass and are supported by highly advanced marketing guys in logo'd golf shirts....... who , as we all know, rewrite the rules depending upon high level fundamentals of physics and engineering, like Market Share, Political Correctness, and Styling Trends. The shame is many of us swallow this nonsense...or sell out to it.

Bottom line, make your own choices based on the only standard one should use, direct factual comparison. Until last year a non step Sutphen held the Factory 2 Kilo record (top speed)....against some pretty strong odds (stepped hulls outnumbered non stepped, by a ratio of 10 to 1). At this point I don't think there are any non stepped hulls competing......Go Figya (poetic license taken)

T2x

Good points T2x - If the steps are out of the water at maximum straight line speed like kilo records, then obviously they cannot have any effect. That would imply that their gain comes when running the hull wetter i.e. slower. They should therefore produce benefits at recreational and cruising speeds, correct? I mean, in the case of all other things being equal, when it comes to straight line speed, there is no substitute for less wetted surface. So, in a racing application, their advantage would come in acceleration, by reducing friction when the hull is sitting lower in the water, right?
As far as cornering instabilty, shouldn't one be able to compensate for the lack of lateral "grip" from a more aerated hull by using different (and possibly more efficient) trim settings, redistributing the CG, and making other hull changes? Obviously, this is very complex, because all these factors are interrelated - a boat is really a "system", isn't it? (Look, for example at F1 cars: When new aerodynamic restrictions came into play, the constructors responded by going to massive front tires and switched much more of the cornering load to the front.)
For example, the 2000 Factory 2 Championship Formula 382 had no strakes after the second step. The 1998 (also stepped) version of this hull DID have strakes in the back section. Since a hull must have some sort of slip angle relative to the water when it is turning, it makes sense that the strakes, rather than supplying directional stability, might have become "trips" and separated the already-aerated water flow from the bottom of the hull. By eliminating the strakes, Formula made the boat better in the turns. It's interesting to note that that boat also used Arneson Rocker plates instead of trim tabs. These plates could be set to provide additional downward force in the turns, allowing the drives to be left in their most efficient trim position to provide forward thrust.
I guess my point is that it is still somewhat early days in the (modern) history of stepped vees, and there are some pretty clever fellows working on them. Look at Cigarette: for years, they preached "no steps". Then they built the new 36, and away it went in F2. Of course, it's also very narrow, like certain Scandanavian and Italian boats that are banned from competition for some reason.....

The floor is yours.

Troutly dude, when you live in a tidal water area and the beach lies perpendicular to the incoming tides, if ya don't beach these buggers it's gonna float away on ya as the water rises and as the tide goes out you occasionally find yourself a little dry especially if you're engaged in a knock down drag out discussion on step hulls....

The argument goes on forever and ever about how much faster the steps make boats. One common reason continuously stood up as a reason why (absolutely non-scientific BTW) is steps have got to be faster because "...look at how many offshore racers that are driving these things, they must be faster/better/stronger..." yadda-yadda-yadda.

It STILL doesn't make sense to me, other than glossy water conditions, how a step significantly increases speed when the additional aeration of the hull is so insignificant compared to a straight Vee that's aerating too in choppy waters?!!
Now, if the boat is soooo heavy it practically becomes a displacement hull and is riding low in the water then maybe the step is doing something noticably better...

I know, I know, there are many different kinds of steps. Thick steps, itty-bitty steps, one step, two and three steps and on and on. They all are "REVOLUTIONARY" designs and are supposed to do different things for their particular hull design. Where is the HARD evidence besides all the marketing gobblety-gook???
I know, I'm supposed to believe all the gibberish tossed out for our consumption by mfr's ESPECIALLY if we are enthralled with a particular manufactured product. Then we will doubly believe all that's put out on their designs etc....

There is one proven and well known fact about steps and that is they are dangerous and they seriously hurt people both novice and professional. It's the recreational guy/girl that concerns me the most, much less complete novices. Is it worth the 2-3 mph you MIGHT gain on "glossy" water? NOT!!! How about maybe in fact the hydrodynamics INCREASES drag??
By the way, why does everyone believe steps make a boat so much faster (I've heard 10 MPH!! more than once) when normally the rule of thumb is it takes 15hp for one mph gained??? The logic just doesn't make sense to me and that's why T2x's comments have struck a cord with me personally and has really helped me believe my own instincts on this.....

To sum all this crap up I just spat out, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE????

Rick
www.HRPA.homestead.com/homepage.html

In addition and in response to any statements about why mfr's who were so hard over on not incorporating steps in their hulls but now do, I firmly believe the reason why they now do is a simple matter of marketing in an extremely competitive retail business. Steps have this mythical reputation and folks want to be "chic" and own a step so they can claim how much faster they are. So, these mfr's need to make money and sacrifice performance/stability for increased sales numbers, hence the step....

Oh, and that bull about learning the trim etc. on steps?! WHY for chris-sakes??! Real scenario: couple of brewski's or mixers. 4-5 people onboard going out to show what she'll do in a little chop. Smokin' along and everyones having fun, stereo's crankin' and you start into a turn and in such a way you look like a professional and you're not quite paying attention to the trim sweet-spot for the step in a turn......

6-12 thousand pounds of boat wacking you as everything tumbles or wacking the windscreen on the way out in a spin-out is not my idea of a performance enhancement. In fact for the driver it's more of a performance inhibitor.....50 cents worth

Rick
www.HRPA.homestead.com/homepage.html

WOW, Reckless has no clue OR common sense!

Reckless- Wheres the evidence? To quote an earlier post "I guess you missed the Formula engineer saying they picked up 16mph with the Fastech hull"....16mph....Do you think a 38 Fastrac with 470 hp per side would do about 78mph and a 86 or 87, 36 or 38 or whatever they made back then would do about 62 or 63 with the same 470hp....sounds about right....I think the Cigarettes have seen similar gains....And as far as driving technique goes....I understand in a stepped boat you LEARN to leave the boat trimmed up or add some tab or whatever when entering a turn, just like you LEARNED to trim a non stepped boat IN when entering a turn....Are you telling us you are utterly incapeable of learning a different technique to drive a boat?.....If that was the case Id still be driving around in my Dads 12ft aluminum! And I guess driving a cat is out of the question.

Not that this makes a heck of alot of difference, but one observation which can be made, I think in this discussion is that the heavier hull, having typically more wetted surface seems to respond better to a stepped or airerated bottom. A well balanced hull with an efficient bottom design would not have the same positive response to steps. Which I believe is the reason some of the hulls with a fairly large wetted surface area for their length seem to post some significant gains with steps. Perhaps if more time was spent on these same hulls in establishing a good weight balance and probably more importantly, developing more effective lifting strakes the steps would not be needed?

Reckless:

Hang in there...You're spot on.

Fever Mike:

Why "learn" to drive a boat design that is no faster..(gasp..It can't be!)..repeat..NO FASTER.... than a non stepped hull which requires no special handling "tricks"? Reckless' depiction of your average weekend boater is , i submit, a clear analysis of the accident in Atlantic City that started this whole string. By the way....I'm not sure if questioning step hull technology makes one clueless...but most of the "top throttlemen" you point to have gone on their heads in these contraptions..take Art Lilly.. he "barrel rolled" the damn things on a weekly basis it seemed...and he wasn't alone. Now if Joe Average can afford to go over 2 or 3 times to "find the limits" of his new Kavitation Kraft..have at it...If not.... put skid fins on them.

Twin 29... The Formula comparison is absurd. I suggest that boat "A" (non stepped)1.weighed considerably more than Boat "B" (stepped)..and

2.did not have a full race setup....while

3. The "test" outcome had to justify the mold investment... (There's those pesky golf shirt guys again!)

If two steps give 16 mph..do 3 give 24?

C-Spray:

You are the best!...Every conversation becomes a justification of the Bat Boat concept.... Talk about Vees..The Bat boat appears... Talk about Cats ...ditto. Okay here's your challenge... The female Preying Mantis kills and eats the male as he reaches the pinnacle of Coitus..... How does Ocke use this in hull design, and when will his genius end global warming , drug abuse, and acid reflux? ..... Remember, a bat's most abundent contribution...is Guano.

T2x

T2- All I ever hear on this board, magazines etc etc is "pleasure vees are going as fast as full race vees of just a few years ago" What do you attribute that to? What about the Cig comparo? Are you incapable of changing your driving technique also?

T2- Oh yeah, with regards to your comments to C-Sray and his bat boats. The same could be said to you about your Skaters and Sutpens....Take That!! HA!