Great Moments In V Bottom History
11-14-2001 | 07:47 AM
#281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twinster dude:
This is about the "mythical" major mph gains of the big step hulls, not scratching & clawing (in other words, being "steppish") about the trivial itty-bitty steps like the one they carved in mine. The Sunsation drives like a vee, turns like a vee, therefore is a vee, Vortex step be damned. Like I've said I don't think it does anything for me.
Neither you, your buddy, or other defenders of steppism thus far have been able to give a good explanation as to how these speed increasing notches are so much faster than a good vee in the rough, where both will be aerated. I'll give a little bit on the glossy stuff but it's the chop where it doesn't make sense...
The general rule of thumb in boating is 15 ponies per mph gained on average. Folks believe little notches gain them 10-16 mph! Care to explain it outside of what T2x referred to earlier about the entire setup of the boat? Go back and read that first then come back here and dispute it without smooth water gobblety-gook like bow wave pushing etc. Try not to regurgitate (sp?) the pitch given in ads and promo video's either. Once that's said and done, explain how the gains are so significant you'd not only pay more for it but you'd completely re-learn how to drive and not destroy it in otherwise fun scenario's...
Now that'll be interesting....
OBTW, Sunsation Rocks!!!
This is about the "mythical" major mph gains of the big step hulls, not scratching & clawing (in other words, being "steppish") about the trivial itty-bitty steps like the one they carved in mine. The Sunsation drives like a vee, turns like a vee, therefore is a vee, Vortex step be damned. Like I've said I don't think it does anything for me.
Neither you, your buddy, or other defenders of steppism thus far have been able to give a good explanation as to how these speed increasing notches are so much faster than a good vee in the rough, where both will be aerated. I'll give a little bit on the glossy stuff but it's the chop where it doesn't make sense...
The general rule of thumb in boating is 15 ponies per mph gained on average. Folks believe little notches gain them 10-16 mph! Care to explain it outside of what T2x referred to earlier about the entire setup of the boat? Go back and read that first then come back here and dispute it without smooth water gobblety-gook like bow wave pushing etc. Try not to regurgitate (sp?) the pitch given in ads and promo video's either. Once that's said and done, explain how the gains are so significant you'd not only pay more for it but you'd completely re-learn how to drive and not destroy it in otherwise fun scenario's...
Now that'll be interesting....
OBTW, Sunsation Rocks!!!
11-14-2001 | 10:12 AM
#282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once again, deep breath and jump in with both feet…
Lets look at the big picture. This discussion is focused on Vee bottom hulls and, like it or not, that market (and marketing) is driven by the APBA (and SBI) factory racing classes. Those boats “emulate” the size and style of boat that the “majority” of “offshore” (Vee bottom) performance boaters have or will purchase. It may be arguable (and like it or not) those classes are dominated by step bottom hulls. Regardless of the achievements of non-step hulls in those classes in the past (records, victories, championships, etc.) today, steps dominate. Why?
All other things being equal in COMPETITION, (and arguably):
1. Under acceleration a step bottom hull will reach maximum velocity faster than a non-step in anything other than very rough water. Like it or not aeration works.
2. At maximum velocity (with minimal running surface) a step and non-step hull are very close to equal. Like it or not, without additional aeration, 24 degrees is 24 degrees.
3. When cornering all hulls must reduce speed, trim, turn, and accelerate; step hulls, however, are far more likely to spin. Like it or not, step hulls are unstable when turning sharply at speed.
And, by design, current race courses are designed with “short” straight-aways and sharp corners – there really are no “Offshore” race courses anymore.
That being the case, and if we agree that steps and non-steps are equal in speed at maximum velocity, then THE BOAT WHICH CAN TURN AND ACCELERATE FASTEST WILL WIN. That being the case, in everything but very rough water, step hulls will win – and they do.
Fact: Step hull boats do not need to be significantly faster at maximum velocity to win a factory class race – they need to turn and accelerate faster. They do accelerate faster, but do they turn faster? They try. Fact of life: step bottom hulls are more likely to hook and spin than non-steps when turning. They don’t always, but they are more likely.
Still, in APBA and/or SBI racing, they will win. And if you need the fastest accelerating hull design to win, then you will buy that design. Likewise, if your hull is not competitive in anything less than “huge” water, you will not be competitive over the coarse of a season and you might as well leave the boat on the trailer. Like it or not, if you race you want to win. Your team wants to win and your sponsors want you to win. Step hulls will dominate factory racing until (a) there is a change in the style of racing (I would take a non-step hull in a true offshore race, say Key West to the Bahamas) or (b) a new development comes to pass which allows non step hulls to accelerate faster (nothing is impossible).
ALL THAT BEING SAID:
The vast majority of boaters are not racing in factory classes – they are “pleasure boaters” or “performance boaters”. Similarly, the vast majority of Monte Carlo drivers are not racing in NASCAR. Give your heads a shake.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you turn 120 degrees at speed. Nobody is forcing you to abandon common sense when you drive. It is still up to the operator to determine how to drive their boat. You can loose control in any boat if you drive like an ass. Performance boating is not factory racing. If you understand your boat you can drive it responsibly.
Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a step or non-step boat. You buy what you want. If you do not, you are an idiot.
Also, your boat either has steps or it does not. You boat is either a Vee bottom or it is not.
Finally, just because you learn a different way to run a different boat does not mean that you have to abandon what you know about how to run the other boat. You drive a rear engine rear drive car diffently than a front engine front drive car, but lots of people know how to drive both.
Lets look at the big picture. This discussion is focused on Vee bottom hulls and, like it or not, that market (and marketing) is driven by the APBA (and SBI) factory racing classes. Those boats “emulate” the size and style of boat that the “majority” of “offshore” (Vee bottom) performance boaters have or will purchase. It may be arguable (and like it or not) those classes are dominated by step bottom hulls. Regardless of the achievements of non-step hulls in those classes in the past (records, victories, championships, etc.) today, steps dominate. Why?
All other things being equal in COMPETITION, (and arguably):
1. Under acceleration a step bottom hull will reach maximum velocity faster than a non-step in anything other than very rough water. Like it or not aeration works.
2. At maximum velocity (with minimal running surface) a step and non-step hull are very close to equal. Like it or not, without additional aeration, 24 degrees is 24 degrees.
3. When cornering all hulls must reduce speed, trim, turn, and accelerate; step hulls, however, are far more likely to spin. Like it or not, step hulls are unstable when turning sharply at speed.
And, by design, current race courses are designed with “short” straight-aways and sharp corners – there really are no “Offshore” race courses anymore.
That being the case, and if we agree that steps and non-steps are equal in speed at maximum velocity, then THE BOAT WHICH CAN TURN AND ACCELERATE FASTEST WILL WIN. That being the case, in everything but very rough water, step hulls will win – and they do.
Fact: Step hull boats do not need to be significantly faster at maximum velocity to win a factory class race – they need to turn and accelerate faster. They do accelerate faster, but do they turn faster? They try. Fact of life: step bottom hulls are more likely to hook and spin than non-steps when turning. They don’t always, but they are more likely.
Still, in APBA and/or SBI racing, they will win. And if you need the fastest accelerating hull design to win, then you will buy that design. Likewise, if your hull is not competitive in anything less than “huge” water, you will not be competitive over the coarse of a season and you might as well leave the boat on the trailer. Like it or not, if you race you want to win. Your team wants to win and your sponsors want you to win. Step hulls will dominate factory racing until (a) there is a change in the style of racing (I would take a non-step hull in a true offshore race, say Key West to the Bahamas) or (b) a new development comes to pass which allows non step hulls to accelerate faster (nothing is impossible).
ALL THAT BEING SAID:
The vast majority of boaters are not racing in factory classes – they are “pleasure boaters” or “performance boaters”. Similarly, the vast majority of Monte Carlo drivers are not racing in NASCAR. Give your heads a shake.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you turn 120 degrees at speed. Nobody is forcing you to abandon common sense when you drive. It is still up to the operator to determine how to drive their boat. You can loose control in any boat if you drive like an ass. Performance boating is not factory racing. If you understand your boat you can drive it responsibly.
Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a step or non-step boat. You buy what you want. If you do not, you are an idiot.
Also, your boat either has steps or it does not. You boat is either a Vee bottom or it is not.
Finally, just because you learn a different way to run a different boat does not mean that you have to abandon what you know about how to run the other boat. You drive a rear engine rear drive car diffently than a front engine front drive car, but lots of people know how to drive both.
11-14-2001 | 10:12 AM
#283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another point to consider….
There has been a lot of discussion regarding failures of Bravo drives in competition. Not the “traditional” failures like spinning prop shafts, but “catastrophic” failures which result in the drive being practically torn from the transom. Again, this is primarily a problem in factory racing and, I would suggest, is not a shortcoming of the Bravo drive, rather it is a result of the demands of factory racing as I described above.
Boats racing in competition are being run as loose as possible (steps or not), are running with the x-dimension as high as possible, and are trying to turn as fast or a sharply as possible. This is resulting in maximum lift and minimal contact surface combined with maximum turning stresses.
The drive has become a structural component which is almost independent of the hull. It has become the pivot point and all of the turning stresses are places “squarely” on the drive assembly. There is so little hull in the water that the drive is exposed to tremendous (and unusual) stress while cornering and one of two things seem to be happening:
1. The turning forces of the boat/drive exceed the (control) abilities of the drive and the boat spins out, or
2. The turning forces of the boat/drive exceed the (structural) strength of the drive and the drive fails.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding failures of Bravo drives in competition. Not the “traditional” failures like spinning prop shafts, but “catastrophic” failures which result in the drive being practically torn from the transom. Again, this is primarily a problem in factory racing and, I would suggest, is not a shortcoming of the Bravo drive, rather it is a result of the demands of factory racing as I described above.
Boats racing in competition are being run as loose as possible (steps or not), are running with the x-dimension as high as possible, and are trying to turn as fast or a sharply as possible. This is resulting in maximum lift and minimal contact surface combined with maximum turning stresses.
The drive has become a structural component which is almost independent of the hull. It has become the pivot point and all of the turning stresses are places “squarely” on the drive assembly. There is so little hull in the water that the drive is exposed to tremendous (and unusual) stress while cornering and one of two things seem to be happening:
1. The turning forces of the boat/drive exceed the (control) abilities of the drive and the boat spins out, or
2. The turning forces of the boat/drive exceed the (structural) strength of the drive and the drive fails.
11-14-2001 | 11:20 AM
#284
Diamond Member #001
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,808
Likes: 5
From: Coastal North Carolina
Adivanman: Good point on the drive issue. As the chief instigator on that thread, I have to acknowledge that the setup of these boats has a lot to do with the stresses placed on the drive. Face it - the skeg is taking a hell of a load in hard cornering, and the higher it is mounted, the worse the situation gets. (My point about the drives failing is that if they are mandated for that application, they should be capable of doing the job reliably and safely.)
This raises another point about boats spinning boats out. Stepped or not, if you raise the drive to the moon, you have less and less rudder (skeg) in the water, and the boat is more prone to simply unhook if it hops up high enough. Could this be the real cause of The Great Boating Disaster that is befalling us all these days?
This raises another point about boats spinning boats out. Stepped or not, if you raise the drive to the moon, you have less and less rudder (skeg) in the water, and the boat is more prone to simply unhook if it hops up high enough. Could this be the real cause of The Great Boating Disaster that is befalling us all these days?
11-14-2001 | 11:21 AM
#285
Guest
Posts: n/a
MILLER posted this from the Active Thunder Design from Harry Scoell: "The forward Delta Conic hull has an eloped conical entry with constant delta planning, and incorporating a wide lipped chine system.
The aft hull develops a constant planning surface that displaces a delta pattern when running. The forward hull creates a bow wave under the hull, allowing the aft "to ride the wave". As speed increases, the wave moves aft thereby lifting the stern. The boat will then plane with a level attitude without climbing over the "traditional hump".
SLOW or FAST, the trim attitude is nearly the same. The DDC has a high degree of lateral stability as a result of the forward chine notch. As planning speed is achieved, air is vectored under the planning section thereby reducing suction loads, as illustrated in the picture above. The forward and aft hull planes at minimum and optimum angles, allowing the aft to "surf" on the bow wave at high speeds. This performance characteristic eliminates the need for trim tabs or wedges. Thus the DDC achieves higher speeds, greater efficiencies and stability, softer ride and effortless control."
The aft hull develops a constant planning surface that displaces a delta pattern when running. The forward hull creates a bow wave under the hull, allowing the aft "to ride the wave". As speed increases, the wave moves aft thereby lifting the stern. The boat will then plane with a level attitude without climbing over the "traditional hump".
SLOW or FAST, the trim attitude is nearly the same. The DDC has a high degree of lateral stability as a result of the forward chine notch. As planning speed is achieved, air is vectored under the planning section thereby reducing suction loads, as illustrated in the picture above. The forward and aft hull planes at minimum and optimum angles, allowing the aft to "surf" on the bow wave at high speeds. This performance characteristic eliminates the need for trim tabs or wedges. Thus the DDC achieves higher speeds, greater efficiencies and stability, softer ride and effortless control."
11-15-2001 | 09:31 PM
#288
Thread Starter
Allergic to Nonsense
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,007
Likes: 21
From: Granite Quarry, NC
Vees 342....cats 368.....
Llama Hot air....unlimited.
Reckless: Keep the faith... join the obsolete...
Adivan: good points and valid, In my humble opinion.... bottom line ..if you bought one...you're stuck with it no matter what it is...just don't call it chicken salad when it's chicken #*&%.....step or non.
Mike A: Love means never having to say I'll sue you.
T2x
Llama Hot air....unlimited.
Reckless: Keep the faith... join the obsolete...
Adivan: good points and valid, In my humble opinion.... bottom line ..if you bought one...you're stuck with it no matter what it is...just don't call it chicken salad when it's chicken #*&%.....step or non.
Mike A: Love means never having to say I'll sue you.
T2x
11-16-2001 | 12:04 AM
#289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Finally (T2x excluded) someone has posted something that made sense and was REALISTIC. Good job Adivanman I appreciate the objective input...
T2x, the faith hasn't wavered a bit. Though I can possibly be convinced there are maybe a "few" step designs on the right package configuration, as you so aptly put it earlier, that are worth the reputation and they're probably of the serious racing variety. But for the recreational powerboater the fleecing of America continues...
T2x, the faith hasn't wavered a bit. Though I can possibly be convinced there are maybe a "few" step designs on the right package configuration, as you so aptly put it earlier, that are worth the reputation and they're probably of the serious racing variety. But for the recreational powerboater the fleecing of America continues...
