Offshoreonly.com - Great Moments in Cat History

Mr. Corn,
As is so often the case, this complex issue has been pared down to “simple” or “efficient” solution for convenience sake.

Consider this, you (the APBA) have decided that the “hull” of a V bottom weighs 125 pounds per foot and, based upon the ratio of 125 pounds per foot, all boats between 30 and 38 feet (measured tip to tip) are essentially equal (given identical power). Based upon that interpretation of parity, you are correct a 32, 35, 36, and 38 foot boat should be on par with one another. Unfortunately, that is overly simple – it is not what I am calling a 35 foot boat that is the issue, it is what you are calling a 35 foot boat.

Case #1 – Two boats, 36 feet long tip to tip as measured by the APBA, one is a flat transom boat (Boat A), the other has an integrated swim platform 3 feet long (Boat B) with otherwise similar hulls and similar beaks. Both boats should weigh 8050 pounds and, on that basis, will be on par will all other boats. Problem is, Boat B is not 36 feet long – it is 33 feet long. Now, assuming that there is a relatively “constant” ratio of hull (from the transom forward) wetted on plane (the “running surface,” say 20 to 30% of the hull), there is 8% less hull in the water for Boat B and 8% less hull affected by hydrodynamic drag. Boat B must be faster than Boat A – all other things being equal. Now if Boat A, by APBA’s ascertain, represents parity with other boats based upon length vs. weight and Boat B is faster than Boat A, than Boat B will be faster than all other boats and there is no parity. This disparity becomes more pronounced for additions such as steps, raised delta pads, and hooked noses.

Case #2 – Two boats, 36 feet long tip to tip as measured by the APBA, both have integrated swim platforms, and both have steps. Boat B is a “flat transom” (below the swim platform), Boat C has a one foot deep delta pad raised one foot above the absolute base of the hull (the tip of the V). The reasoning outlined for case one would demonstrate one lack of parity here (as Boat C is shorter still), but there is another. Step bottom boats are not allowed extension boxes (as per the APBA rules) yet Boat C effectively has an integrated extension box. Will this make Boat C faster than Boat B by definition? Depends on the hull, however an extension box must represent some advantage, or the rules would not ban them for this hull design.

Case #3 – Two boats, 36 feet long tip to tip as measured by the APBA, both have integrated swim platforms, steps, and “flat transoms” below the SP. Boat B is a “conventional” beak boat while Boat F is a severely hooked beak. The logic presented in Case #1 should apply here, although according to the rules (in the past) these boats should have been equal. Forget the fact that Boat F had less cabin than Boat B – measuring tip to tip they were equal and, by the rules both on par. Boat F, however was always faster, despite repeated penalties and rule changes. Yet rather than admit that the length to weight rule had shortcomings, Boat F was effectively thrown out of the class and it’s manufacturer became the recipient of personal "attacks".

Fact: Hydrodynamic (drag) forces are far more influential than either weight or power.

Plain and simple, a straight length to weight ratio does not ensure parity. It is just not that simple. One manufacturer that I can think of makes the most of the rules and is increasing its efforts in the class within the context of the rules. What will happen if that manufacturer becomes a dominant hull in 2002? Will it be “ruled out” as Fountain was? The rules need the attention – manufacturers build boats to the rules – if they don’t they should be disqualified. When they take advantage of the rules and are successful, well, that’s the point of racing.

This, needless to say, leads to the next question…What does the APBA want F1 and F2 to be? A competitive racing class/entity which seeks competition within the rules (like NASCAR or Formula 1), or does it want the class to be a “drivers class” and/or training ground (like ASA or IROC)? If absolute parity is the objective, cut another sponsorship deal and specify an exclusive hull (you have done it with engines and drives, you’re part way there), if not, look to fix the rules and let competition pave the way.

By the way, if Mr. Fountain’s motors were not built to speck, they should have been torn down and the boats disqualified – that is why you have those rules. The same would apply to the hull design – if they were not within the context of the rules, they should have been disqualified. F2 and Unlimited Hydro do share a significant trait – success is penalized by the sanctioning body.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Adivanman ]