Hey Cat:

The majority elected Hillary...Bill too for that matter.

Many boat designs are faster today than 10 years ago. Engines are better, setups are better, props are better too. Each year kilo records are set some with new boats some with older ones...the setup is the ultimate criteria. Simple fact.. A vee planing on the aft part of the hull is faster than any other approach. The addition of a step is simply an additional point of contact forward and adds more drag. While this may be offset in some cases by the cavitation (bubbles) caused by the forward contact it does not provide for an accelerating force...in short it is, at best, equal. If I can choose between equals in speed, I'll take the one that turns better.

If Peter Hledin made a non stepped cat.. I'd certainly try it, before I discounted it. We made over a hundred cats.... Those with one step were faster than those with two...Perhaps...That might lead one to conclude no steps would be faster yet. Some years back an Italian fellow named Renato Molinari ruled tunnel boat driving, design and construction at speeds equivalent to today's Super Cats. His boats were very well designed and consistent...and he always saved the best for himself...as true competitors are likely to do. He also understood the advantage of "psyching" his opponents and recognized the gullibility of the majority (see Hillary above)...so..... He put horizontal fins on his pickle forks at a race...and he won... A few weeks later...everybody else had them (Miles, Cougar, etc)....shortly thereafter he put horizontal fins on his after planes (kind of like a fixed tunnel tab on each side of his engine)..... and he won....a few weeks later every other boat's after planes sported horizontal fins. Finally he showed up with fins on his cowlings and on random deck surfaces....The "majority" believed that this gave greater directional stability and fins sprouted up damn near every where ...some guys even added little winglets too....... Finally (you'll love this part C-spray)..... He showed up at the season finale with no fins at all....and won again. When asked what happened to the fins he smiled, winked and said.... "They looked-a good, but of course-a, they didn't-a do anything"........

The more things change.....

Boy, I love being obsolete.

T2x

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: T2x ]

Tx2 states "The addition of a step is simply an additional point of contact forward and adds more drag. While this may be offset in some cases by the cavitation (bubbles) caused by the forward contact it does not provide for an accelerating force...in short it is, at best, equal." WRONG. BIG TIME WRONG! Some boats incorporate steps that are designed to reduce drag, by reducing wetted surface contact area (aft of the step, forward of the drives) thus allowing the boat to run faster and still using the full length of the boat in rougher conditions. Your pal George Linder can educate you on this!

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: ScreaminDemon ]

T: Brilliant move by Molinari in applying visually obvious but non-functional gizmos to distract everyone form the real issue at hand. I've done the same thing in the past, and it pretty much works every time (as long as you are the one everyone else is chasing).

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: C_Spray ]

Sorry Screamin..... George isn't a step fan either. As a matter of fact, he and I have this conversation repeatedly. Remember, we put steps on two 21' Shadow Vees in the early 80's and discarded them..... (before Reggie "invented" them even)because.... after testing...with identical power...sterndrive and outboard...we could find no discernable speed increase and lost steering control.

By the way there's a picture on the Mercury screen saver of an Allison Vee at speed, wetting only the back 2-3 inches of its pad bottom. One look will convince anyone that no step could reduce the friction, nor provide a better attack angle.

C-spray.... The ocke craft is fast, no doubt...but is it the steps?...or the wing?......or the beam?.... Or the weight?.....or the duo prop?... Oh, I remember now... It is the perfection of the combined concepts as envisioned by the Maestro..... Silly me... I thought it was the wings.....

r2, what I want to know is how you ever survived the transition from mahogany to fiberglass. You really couldn’t beat those wooden hulls. The flatheads were great engines as well, it’s a shame they don’t make them anymore…

I never liked flatheads.....mechanical or human.

Remember...there's nothing new under the sun.....what goes around comes around...and speed tricks that worked before will work again. The speed record for Indy was set some time ago....and Roy Duby's (wooden hull)unlimited hydro propeller driven speed record of 1960 was broken only a couple of years ago(composite hull)...by a very slim margin.....

Don't know why this occurred to me, but the hot new turbines so popular in the big cats these days were first designed and installed in helicopters....in the 60's.

There are none so blind........

T: Thanks for finally conceding to reality. It's always the package (or "system"-see my post at the top of the page). I'll bet that even a 32' Skater with Promax's could be screwed up if not set up correctly.

Still, it is possible that you guys didn't get the package right when you tried the steps all those years ago? Did you try every combination of:

Number of steps
Step location
Step height
Step shape
CG location
Drive height
Deadrise
Stem profile
ad nauseum...

(Oops - That last paragraph should be in the cat thread, shouldn't it?)

...than those who only look to the past.

C-spray - why bother even trying? There is nothing new, nothing innovative, just what has been before. If it did not work in the 70's, it does not work. Period. There are no other mitigating considerations. Face it steps did not work then and they will never work.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Adivanman ]

Deep breaths, everybody. Flex your typing fingers a couple of times and relax. The point of thie thread is not to change anyone's mind (I think we've proven that), but to debate the technical merits/drawbacks of various designs.

T: (1) The rules have changed a lot since the current Indy qualifying record was set. They're going as fast now with 600 hp as we did in 1994 with 990 hp. (2) C'mon - not even Reggie would have the funds to develop those turbines. That was our tax dollars at work.
Hmmm - "Great moments in turbine history" I think this begins in Egypt, doesn't it?

T2x - you continously switch things around to fit ONLY your point of view. And your "my way" or the "hi way" therories are getting worn out. Is it possible that if your 21' Shadows didn't perform better, that that you engineered the bottom improperly? (thats a dumb question) And I am under the impression that we are talking offshore boats, as for the Allison remark, of course, it only weighs 900 lbs and has an outboard hanging off the transom creating leverage to air the thing out to the max, of course steps wouldn't work under that particular design...that was just a STUPID remark and comparison...i applaud the manufacturers who have gained performance and customers by doing something innovative instead a living in the stoneage, trying to argue WHY it can't work when they have gone out and done it...i am sure someone told the wright bros that they couldn't fly! But did they listen...nope!

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: ScreaminDemon ]