Phenomenon Update: Look for Record Attempt in Summer 2011
12-12-2010, 07:35 PM
#41
Correspondent
CorrespondentThread Starter
Cat's point makes it so much more remarkable ... Warby's budget was minimal. Today, $65 buys you a blower belt on one on Davids Scott's engines.
But that was then. I have followed the progress of two would-be water speed record campaigns, most notably the U.K.-based Quicksilver, and the biggest hurdle they faced before they even got a chance to run was funding. No one his his right mind, with all due respect to Mr. Warby, would try it Warby's way. He had a much greater chance of failing—and that means dying—than succeeding. Modern attempts or plans at attempts are high-tech, and that means big-buck.
Here's the problem: The marketing rewards for sponsoring a water-speed record attempt, even if it succeeds, are minimal at best because no one cares. (OK, we care.) If Apple, for example, decides to sponsor one of these campaigns and it succeeds, the resulting buzz would not significantly boost, let's say, iPad sales. They'd never recover their investment.
So corporate America is out. And if you doubt my hypothesis, riddle me this: Why hasn't corporate America stepped up to fund such an attempt? On the surface, it looks attainable, especially when compared to the sound-barrier-breaking land-speed record. But the truth is that 317 mph is so far beyond something like 217 mph, which David Scott and John Tomlinson reportedly saw at the winning run at this year's Lake of the Ozarks Shootout, that's it hard to imagine. If you're interested in just the forces involved, have a chat with John Cosker.
Every time I think about Warby's record I get chills. Literally. It is a feat that will not be repeated. I know, I know, "Records are made to be broken." Not this one.
12-12-2010, 07:50 PM
#42
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Warby is a straight-shooter who'll be more than happy to tell you the role luck played in his record. That no one has even come close to breaking his record speaks volumes.
Cat's point makes it so much more remarkable ... Warby's budget was minimal. Today, $65 buys you a blower belt on one on Davids Scott's engines.
But that was then. I have followed the progress of two would-be water speed record campaigns, most notably the U.K.-based Quicksilver, and the biggest hurdle they faced before they even got a chance to run was funding. No one his his right mind, with all due respect to Mr. Warby, would try it Warby's way. He had a much greater chance of failing—and that means dying—than succeeding. Modern attempts or plans at attempts are high-tech, and that means big-buck.
Here's the problem: The marketing rewards for sponsoring a water-speed record attempt, even if it succeeds, are minimal at best because no one cares. (OK, we care.) If Apple, for example, decides to sponsor one of these campaigns and it succeeds, the resulting buzz would not significantly boost, let's say, iPad sales. They'd never recover their investment.
So corporate America is out. And if you doubt my hypothesis, riddle me this: Why hasn't corporate America stepped up to fund such an attempt? On the surface, it looks attainable, especially when compared to the sound-barrier-breaking land-speed record. But the truth is that 317 mph is so far beyond something like 217 mph, which David Scott and John Tomlinson reportedly saw at the winning run at this year's Lake of the Ozarks Shootout, that's it hard to imagine. If you're interested in just the forces involved, have a chat with John Cosker.
Every time I think about Warby's record I get chills. Literally. It is a feat that will not be repeated. I know, I know, "Records are made to be broken." Not this one.
Cat's point makes it so much more remarkable ... Warby's budget was minimal. Today, $65 buys you a blower belt on one on Davids Scott's engines.
But that was then. I have followed the progress of two would-be water speed record campaigns, most notably the U.K.-based Quicksilver, and the biggest hurdle they faced before they even got a chance to run was funding. No one his his right mind, with all due respect to Mr. Warby, would try it Warby's way. He had a much greater chance of failing—and that means dying—than succeeding. Modern attempts or plans at attempts are high-tech, and that means big-buck.
Here's the problem: The marketing rewards for sponsoring a water-speed record attempt, even if it succeeds, are minimal at best because no one cares. (OK, we care.) If Apple, for example, decides to sponsor one of these campaigns and it succeeds, the resulting buzz would not significantly boost, let's say, iPad sales. They'd never recover their investment.
So corporate America is out. And if you doubt my hypothesis, riddle me this: Why hasn't corporate America stepped up to fund such an attempt? On the surface, it looks attainable, especially when compared to the sound-barrier-breaking land-speed record. But the truth is that 317 mph is so far beyond something like 217 mph, which David Scott and John Tomlinson reportedly saw at the winning run at this year's Lake of the Ozarks Shootout, that's it hard to imagine. If you're interested in just the forces involved, have a chat with John Cosker.
Every time I think about Warby's record I get chills. Literally. It is a feat that will not be repeated. I know, I know, "Records are made to be broken." Not this one.
The point I was making the resistance of the rudder was holding the bow down but at a cost and He knew this and was still cutting away on it.
12-13-2010, 10:14 AM
#43
Correspondent
CorrespondentThread Starter
I am well aware of the forces involved from doing my bottoms and the math involved,this is why I respect Mr Warby, he took the step with what he believed was right and did it in a grand fashion, even with a boat wake he had to pass over.His mentor was Donald Campbells old engineer. The point I was making the resistance of the rudder was holding the bow down but at a cost and He knew this and was still cutting away on it.
The point I was making the resistance of the rudder was holding the bow down but at a cost and He knew this and was still cutting away on it.No implication whatsover that you don't know what you're talking about. Far from it. You probably know more a lot more about those forces than I do. i was just making a point to to illustrate how truly remarkable Mr. Warby's record is and how truly dangerous such attempts are.
When you mention Donald Campbell, you reinforce my second point. That would be the late Donald Campbell, the one who died in 1967 trying to break the water-speed record in England.
12-13-2010, 10:57 AM
#44
Banned
Some simple math: 220 mph equals roughly 354 kph. At 354 kph you cover roughly 6 kilometers per minute. That means to break the record the boat needs to sustain the speed of 220 mph for roughly ten seconds. And then do it again. It doesn't sound like much. On the other hand, there's a reason the record has stood uncontested for some time.
And Warby's record of 317 mph? Forget about it. It will never be broken. For many reasons, No. 1 being economics.
And Warby's record of 317 mph? Forget about it. It will never be broken. For many reasons, No. 1 being economics.
12-13-2010, 11:35 AM
#45
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Hey Steve 1,
No implication whatsover that you don't know what you're talking about. Far from it. You probably know more a lot more about those forces than I do. i was just making a point to to illustrate how truly remarkable Mr. Warby's record is and how truly dangerous such attempts are.
When you mention Donald Campbell, you reinforce my second point. That would be the late Donald Campbell, the one who died in 1967 trying to break the water-speed record in England.
No implication whatsover that you don't know what you're talking about. Far from it. You probably know more a lot more about those forces than I do. i was just making a point to to illustrate how truly remarkable Mr. Warby's record is and how truly dangerous such attempts are.
When you mention Donald Campbell, you reinforce my second point. That would be the late Donald Campbell, the one who died in 1967 trying to break the water-speed record in England.
Yes Sir that was the late Donald Campbell the former record holder at 276 MPH.
12-13-2010, 11:47 AM
#46
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Over the years I have heard bits and pieces but this puts it all together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Campbell
12-13-2010, 12:10 PM
#47
Banned
Campbell was another man cut from the same cloth as Ken Warby with "balls big as coconuts".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6a--...eature=related
Ironic that Warby did not wait for his wake to subside either, but he survived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6a--...eature=related
Ironic that Warby did not wait for his wake to subside either, but he survived.
12-13-2010, 03:36 PM
#48
Allergic to Nonsense
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Granite Quarry, NC
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
I have mixed emotions about these record attempts. First I don't think that it's worth anybody's life to try and break a water speed record. That having been said, I also believe that at some point you can make a boat so big and powerful that the scale speed will be much less than Ken Warby or Dave Villwock's legitimate numbers. Why don't we simply put seaplane pontoons on an old airliner and fly the thing right along the surface? My point is 200 mph in a 50-70 footer is no where near equivalent to 200 mph in a drag boat or Unlimited Hydroplane. The existing outboard record of 176 or so in a comparatively tiny boat was a far greater accomplishment IMHO than anything that has been done in the big Offshore cats. Compounding these feelings is the fact that nobody is running anywhere near these speeds in true OFFSHORE conditions. What has developed out of all of this is simply a small fleet of Big Boats loosely titled "Offshore Cats" with virtually endless power. Try these attempts with Warby's budget and a boat of that size...or an outboard hydroplane with about 4 to 5 liters of engine displacement..... then you're doing something.
Again, this is my opinion, and i apologise to those who have spent millions in pursuit of big LOTO numbers........ but the bottom line is there are, as stated earlier, any number of hydros that will blow your doors off...... or your canopy hatch
.
Again, this is my opinion, and i apologise to those who have spent millions in pursuit of big LOTO numbers........ but the bottom line is there are, as stated earlier, any number of hydros that will blow your doors off...... or your canopy hatch
.
Last edited by T2x; 12-14-2010 at 07:58 AM.
12-13-2010, 03:55 PM
#49
Registered
yo TX2 did you catch the world finals they shortned up the track from 1/4 to 1000 feet for top fuel hydro and alky guys to slow them down and the top fuel guys are still hitting 250
I just jumped in on the last page if this has been said
I just jumped in on the last page if this has been said
Last edited by lightning jet; 12-15-2010 at 09:09 PM.
12-15-2010, 11:21 AM
#50
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I met Al Copeland back in February at the Miami Boat Show. One hell of a nice guy he states that he is serious about carrying on the legacy. I hope all the best for him and his team!
