Cat Length question
#21
Registered
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: STL / LOTO
Sean,
I know what you're saying, and I'd thought of that.
It's obvious that an unwetted beak changes nothing.
It might be in the way that we each interpret the question.
Would I not be correct if both boats were produced from
the same mold and shorter one was built using as 2-1/2"
dam at the transom?
9 Lives
I know what you're saying, and I'd thought of that.
It's obvious that an unwetted beak changes nothing.
It might be in the way that we each interpret the question.
Would I not be correct if both boats were produced from
the same mold and shorter one was built using as 2-1/2"
dam at the transom?
9 Lives
#22
Originally Posted by MarkMathews
Is being 3" short going to give ANY advantage? Does it have ANY disadvantage?
The disadvantage of not being long enough to meet the spec class minimum length.
Whether there is an advantage or not, if boats are under the minimum length, then they are not to be allowed to run. Period.
I always thought SKATER Cats had this issue in the past prior to the OSS organization...
#23
Originally Posted by 9 Lives
Sean,
I know what you're saying, and I'd thought of that.
It's obvious that an unwetted beak changes nothing.
It might be in the way that we each interpret the question.
Would I not be correct if both boats were produced from
the same mold and shorter one was built using as 2-1/2"
dam at the transom?
9 Lives
I know what you're saying, and I'd thought of that.
It's obvious that an unwetted beak changes nothing.
It might be in the way that we each interpret the question.
Would I not be correct if both boats were produced from
the same mold and shorter one was built using as 2-1/2"
dam at the transom?
9 Lives
and the 388 skater has a transom notch, so adding 2.5" to the transom might not increase running surface anyway... as long as the boat was rebalanced....
Last edited by Sean H; 11-17-2006 at 12:18 PM.
#24
Wouldn't it just be much easier to have all of the owners vote to have the minimum length reduced to 37' 6" and open up the racing to a much wider range of boats?
#25
Registered
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: STL / LOTO
I was assuming for both boats to be balanced correctly and
agree that the importance of correct balancing to be immense.
Now that you mentioned it, I didn't see any thing in the OSSC rules
regarding notches and wonder if they'll allow Tony to add the required
amount to the transom above the running surface as in a small notch.
Of course, re-balancing of the boat would be required for this,
unlike a simple sponson extension at the front. (Beak)
As to Nick's response. I thought that your 0.5% calculation was
in reduced wetted surface and do agree that 0.5% of added lift
would show little, if any, performance increase.
agree that the importance of correct balancing to be immense.
Now that you mentioned it, I didn't see any thing in the OSSC rules
regarding notches and wonder if they'll allow Tony to add the required
amount to the transom above the running surface as in a small notch.
Of course, re-balancing of the boat would be required for this,
unlike a simple sponson extension at the front. (Beak)
As to Nick's response. I thought that your 0.5% calculation was
in reduced wetted surface and do agree that 0.5% of added lift
would show little, if any, performance increase.
Last edited by 9 Lives; 11-17-2006 at 02:26 PM. Reason: moved decimal point.....oops
#26
Originally Posted by 9 Lives
As to Nick's response. I thought that your .05% calculation was in reduced wetted surface and do agree that .05% of added lift would show little, if any, performance increase.
#27
Originally Posted by sharkeymarine
Wouldn't it just be much easier to have all of the owners vote to have the minimum length reduced to 37' 6" and open up the racing to a much wider range of boats? 

#28
Hey you all are veering into a discussion of actual events, be careful or posts will start to disappear and alter egos will show up
Right back at ya, Round Shady
Right back at ya, Round Shady
#30
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Shark, I agree with Uncle Teddy, let's not veer off to actual events.
So far I've seen a lot of good info, but no conclusive evidence.
I know in stock class, the longer boats are forced to carry more weight as thier able to pack more air under the tunnel. That's the main reason I ask the initial question.
So far I've seen a lot of good info, but no conclusive evidence.
I know in stock class, the longer boats are forced to carry more weight as thier able to pack more air under the tunnel. That's the main reason I ask the initial question.





