|
Originally Posted by nautdesign1
(Post 4493258)
I have not been on OSO for a long time but the carnage of late is hard to ignore.
Tunnel boats are absolutely wings in that they create aerodynamic lift via a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the tunnel. Whilst an aircraft in free flight derives 2/3 of its lift from the upper suction part of the wing, a wing in extreme ground effect is the reciprocal. The suction portion of the wing produces the same quantum of suction lift as in free flight but the pressure side of the wing (by virtue of its proximity to ground (water)), produces vastly more lift. When combined with the effective increase in aspect ratio , GE lift is very efficient and that’s why aerodynamicists have been chasing this Holy Grail for over a century. HOWEVER these poor chaps in the Skater are just the latest victims of GE’s dark side - The change in Cm (pitching moment) and centre of aerodynamic pressure (CP) when the wing (tunnel) starts to rise from the water and/or increase its angle of attack (AOA). In extreme GE, the CP is roughly 40-50% of the chord (subject to AOA, aspect ratio, section etc). Due to their ‘dirty’ upper side (cockpits etc) and very low aspect ratios, tunnel boats derive very little of their operating aerodynamic lift from the suction side of the wing (which acts at roughly 25% MAC). This explains why a tunnel boat’s CP is closer to the centre of area (i.e. 50% MAC) when in GE. However once the bow starts to rise, the CP moves towards the freestream point of 25% MAC and the nose down pitching moment decreases. Most tunnel boats have their lcg at roughly 70% of the chord, so once the bow starts to rise the CP moves further and further away from the lcg, and we all know what happens next. This is exasperated by the fact that at higher AOA's the tunnel starts to create vortex lift (same as Concorde) by virtue of its low aspect ratio. Therefore instead of stalling (as a conventional aerofoil would at a high AOA), it keeps on lifting and then (as mentioned in a previous post) pure drag takes over. If you look at the video of this most recent tragedy, the angular velocity is shockingly high. It shows just how out of balance the boat is (at this velocity) once it loses the stabilising support of the surface. Tunnel boats are partial aircraft with no means of aerodynamic control and negative aerodynamic stability (lcg is not even close to the CP once a perturbation which causes a bow up pitching moment occurs). For those that have not been enlightened by Mr. Szolack’s astute decision, fly at high velocities at your own considerable risk, ND1 |
The simple fact is that cats are using lift, running at speeds that even a 747 will fly at, and basically the only thing touching the water is the prop with no way to control the flight of the boat. Overall its just a bad recipe.
Alot of us will be in Key West in a couple weeks admiring the new boats with their ultra modern paint, interior, electronics systems, new Merc turbo motors, etc.... But, if you take away all the paint, bling, fancy stereos, etc...., its bascially the same old fiberglass antiquated cat that cam out in the mid 80's with nothing done to accommodate the fact that they are basically airplanes that sit in the water. I also think that most of the people on this thread agree that once the bow gets high enough, and starts to blow over, there's basically nothing that can be done. That is why an AHRS system would be needed and could catch the boat before the angle of attack gets to the point where a canard or spoiler system would not help. Have any of you tried to hold a piece of plywood in the wind????? That is what a vertical cat is going against, and like i said, at that point its too late. |
I'm guessing the investment in testing for each hull design to establish a baseline aerodynamic profile will be significant. That and the costs to develop aircraft quality fly by wire controls should eliminate most owners due to design, testing and hardware cost. After all these are unique sport boats not fighter aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by nautdesign1
(Post 4493258)
I have not been on OSO for a long time but the carnage of late is hard to ignore.
Tunnel boats are absolutely wings in that they create aerodynamic lift via a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the tunnel. Whilst an aircraft in free flight derives 2/3 of its lift from the upper suction part of the wing, a wing in extreme ground effect is the reciprocal. The suction portion of the wing produces the same quantum of suction lift as in free flight but the pressure side of the wing (by virtue of its proximity to ground (water)), produces vastly more lift. When combined with the effective increase in aspect ratio , GE lift is very efficient and that’s why aerodynamicists have been chasing this Holy Grail for over a century. HOWEVER these poor chaps in the Skater are just the latest victims of GE’s dark side - The change in Cm (pitching moment) and centre of aerodynamic pressure (CP) when the wing (tunnel) starts to rise from the water and/or increase its angle of attack (AOA). In extreme GE, the CP is roughly 40-50% of the chord (subject to AOA, aspect ratio, section etc). Due to their ‘dirty’ upper side (cockpits etc) and very low aspect ratios, tunnel boats derive very little of their operating aerodynamic lift from the suction side of the wing (which acts at roughly 25% MAC). This explains why a tunnel boat’s CP is closer to the centre of area (i.e. 50% MAC) when in GE. However once the bow starts to rise, the CP moves towards the freestream point of 25% MAC and the nose down pitching moment decreases. Most tunnel boats have their lcg at roughly 70% of the chord, so once the bow starts to rise the CP moves further and further away from the lcg, and we all know what happens next. This is exasperated by the fact that at higher AOA's the tunnel starts to create vortex lift (same as Concorde) by virtue of its low aspect ratio. Therefore instead of stalling (as a conventional aerofoil would at a high AOA), it keeps on lifting and then (as mentioned in a previous post) pure drag takes over. If you look at the video of this most recent tragedy, the angular velocity is shockingly high. It shows just how out of balance the boat is (at this velocity) once it loses the stabilising support of the surface. Tunnel boats are partial aircraft with no means of aerodynamic control and negative aerodynamic stability (lcg is not even close to the CP once a perturbation which causes a bow up pitching moment occurs). For those that have not been enlightened by Mr. Szolack’s astute decision, fly at high velocities at your own considerable risk, ND1 |
The Phenomenon hull also has less tunnel length looking at the front where the canard is installed . Has anyone ever seen or heard any performance of this boat ?
|
Originally Posted by midwest272
(Post 4493439)
The Phenomenon hull also has less tunnel length looking at the front where the canard is installed . Has anyone ever seen or heard any performance of this boat ?
The 36' was relying on its angle of attack getting pushed up dangerously in order to increase the lift. |
Originally Posted by midwest272
(Post 4493439)
The Phenomenon hull also has less tunnel length looking at the front where the canard is installed . Has anyone ever seen or heard any performance of this boat ?
|
Boats have gotten to fast for what they are. Pleasure boats don't need to do mid 100s+. If you ask me it will slowly end our sport and organized Runs.
|
I would like to hear Mr. Szolack tell us about this shootout run. This is very impressive.
I would like to hear his thoughts at around .15 seconds when they push the throttles down, then again at .30 when the boat seems to pack the tunnel completely. It's incredible. And extremely fast. Those engines are singing, wonder what RPM's at WOT. The one thing I notice is that the boat starts "galloping" at quite a fast speed... then once the tunnel is packed, it levels out and is hauling' ass... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7sbSIZKAIM |
Originally Posted by Double Rigged
(Post 4493033)
I do not disagree with the design procedures of the boats that built back in the day and the way some are built today. Your point is a valid. Nor am I here to defend Skater but I ask all you this question.
1) How many times has any boat ran over 190mph? Not to mention being in the 36' size range. 2) Of all the runs over 190mph not counting the big Mystics or turbine boats how many other manufactures other than Skater have accomplished this? Gino's MTI did it and is the only other brand I am aware of. I would bet if they left this boat set up to run 170mph or less it would not have went over. Jim had told me many times they wanted to break 200mph. To the best of my knowledge the time trials being run that day were not on a closed course and limited to a mile. It was a radar run for top speed. We all know the boat ran 194mph at LOTO in a mile course. Maybe they were looking to break 200mph and were well on there way before it went over. Point is that if you take anything with a wing at those speeds it will fly at some point. There is a reason Nascar added restrictor plates, roof flaps etc. Indy car changed motors for less HP. NRHA shorten the length of the run. Reason being even with spoilers, and down force if the vehicle got out of shape it would lift and fly up in the air. You are also correct there were things that keep the bow down and make the boat safer. But just like they lose is fast. Add down force and maybe the boat only runs in the 180's? Cars have to deal with smooth pavement and only wind gusts on a track. Boats have many more variables no CAD design will help if you encounter something at those speeds that upset the running angle of wing. The dangers involved at those speeds will never be safe. Just my .02 cents. |
Again, much respect to Mr. Szolnack, and I am no expert....but after watching this video, it appears this boat is running so light that it is sponson-walking from the "gust" of wind, (side-to-side)...balls of steel to keep pushing it once that is happening. And it may not be what it looks like, just my half-ass guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TluhQtcXXUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TluhQtcXXUU |
I wasn't there or driving but it looked like the boat wasn't ever settled and rocking at some resonant frequency.
|
I’ve been watching this thread with great interest. I think the OP is doing a very noble and intelligent thing here and states his case with clear conviction. Two thumbs up!
But the reason I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread is that I too have some pretty strong feelings about going fast in power boats. Before I share those feelings though, let be share my qualifications. I’ve been boating for just over 55 years. I am the past Vice President and Race Director for the Rochester Offshore Powerboat Association. I participated in and ran a number of local and divisional APBA races for the club. I have also participated in and helped run our Poker Runs since the late 1980’s and used to co-run (with another Progression owner and OSO member) the Radar Runs for ROPA every year at our annual Seneca Lake Battleship Run. I was also instrumental in ending our Radar Runs about 5 years ago due to concerns about safety and liability. So what do I think about Radar Runs or any other event where the goal is seeing how fast somebody can run over a (hopefully) closed course? Sadly, I’m no longer in favor of doing it. And the fact that we’ve lost a number of good people over the past couple of years in events like this just further strengthens my resolve. There was a time – about five to ten years ago – when this kind of thing was pretty exciting and even I enjoyed participating in them. (Hell, I have a few trophies to prove it too.) So what changed? The first thing that changed was how much power was / is readily available at a reasonable cost to screw into ones boat. Remember when 500 HP was “over the top?” Today, it’s not at all unusual to find warrantied 1,500 HP (or greater) motors readily available. That’s double and triple (or more) power than we had a few short years ago. The second thing to change is actually something that didn’t change all that much: the hulls we’re putting all of this new found power into. Sure, stepped V -hulls are a relatively new development, but one can argue that in a straight line, they actually made for a safer top speed since one didn’t need to “trim to the stars” for that last few MPH. (Of course if one turns the wheel a bit, all bets are off.) One can also argue that catamaran hulls haven’t changed all that dramatically and they react quite positively to adding a Flux Capacitor (or two) under the hatches. Just look at the numbers folks are running now as compared to just five years ago. In summary, there’s been a dramatic uptick in the speeds that just about anybody can attain. Related to the above, although safety systems and technologies have advanced pretty well over the past few years, the speeds it is now possible to run have outpaced the ability of the safety systems to protect both occupants and spectators. You Physics majors all know that doubling the speed (velocity) of a boat way more than doubles the impact forces involved in a crash. And last time I checked, only the top offshore teams could afford and / or have installed and actually use the very latest stuff. So here’s my most important point and opinion. I believe that it is now far too easy to go fast enough to kill somebody in a powerboat. You can argue that canopies, helmets, Lifeline vests, kill switches, etc. should help save lives, but they’re all pretty much useless at the speeds we’re now seeing. (Remember, you can roller skate on water at about 60 MPH.) The sad truth is that most folks running in organized “radar runs” can run speeds far in excess of their boats or bodies abilities to withstand a crash. And I will reluctantly add that a small, but troubling percentage of drivers are not capable of running as fast as their boats can. The other issue is liability. Hopefully I’ve proved my point that it’s now way too easy to go way too fast. Knowing that, who in their right mind would want to organize and run an event where one was clearly tempting fate? And for those who think that having participants signing any kind of Waiver will protect you from getting dragged through the court system, forget it. (Hopefully Mark Blondin will chime in and reinforce that point.) In summary, I applaud the OP’s decision not to run in future events and fully agree with his personal reasoning. I further suggest that we need to address the gap between attainable top speeds and safety before somebody else steps in and does it for us. Remember, it took the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. to wake NASCAR up to the fact that they had the exact same problem we now have. |
Originally Posted by midwest272
(Post 4493439)
The Phenomenon hull also has less tunnel length looking at the front where the canard is installed . Has anyone ever seen or heard any performance of this boat ?
|
So what do I think about Radar Runs or any other event where the goal is seeing how fast somebody can run over a (hopefully) closed course? Sadly, I’m no longer in favor of doing it. And the fact that we’ve lost a number of good people over the past couple of years in events like this just further strengthens my resolve. There was a time – about five to ten years ago – when this kind of thing was pretty exciting
----- I feel if somebody has there urge to go this fast, build a TOP FUEL Drag boat that has "seemed" to keep the majority of its racers safe during an accident. AGAIN, these are Offshore boats that were NEVER intended to go this fast or run in a straight line. Somehow, EVERYONE lost sight of true offshore racing. People need to push this sport back where it belongs, cool thing is, these people will find that the Need For Speed is more thrilling over rough water where it requires talent and balls at speeds that are much safer - stuff still happens, but I feel todays offshore safety equipment is good enough for "realistic offshore racing, not 50' rocket powered sleds. Although safety systems and technologies have advanced pretty well over the past few years, ----Honestly, and not arguing, but I personally disagree on this, I believe the cockpit enclosures may look better, but are no further ahead of 10-15 years ago. The Jesse James 50 and Popeyes 50 had the best money could design the speeds it is now possible to run have outpaced the ability of the safety systems to protect both occupants and spectators. ----Example. 46' Outerlimits went over at 150MPH, correct? Fully enclosed safety system, correct? There is always the G force that will get the racers if they survive all else.. The issue as I see it, as long as these events are available, somebody gonna be out there pushing it. And that is their right to do so. So, eliminate the events, or restrict/limit the HP and boat size to where they run close to the same, but then it will come down to setup and skills, not shear HP that is dependent on how much cash somebody is willing to spend. Just my 02 cents. And thanks for your input, this thread should be "stuck" at the top so others see it and maybe think about what is being said. Happy Sunday! |
Originally Posted by jusabum
(Post 4493879)
So what do I think about Radar Runs or any other event where the goal is seeing how fast somebody can run over a (hopefully) closed course? Sadly, I’m no longer in favor of doing it. And the fact that we’ve lost a number of good people over the past couple of years in events like this just further strengthens my resolve. There was a time – about five to ten years ago – when this kind of thing was pretty exciting
----- I feel if somebody has there urge to go this fast, build a TOP FUEL Drag boat that has "seemed" to keep the majority of its racers safe during an accident. AGAIN, these are Offshore boats that were NEVER intended to go this fast or run in a straight line. Somehow, EVERYONE lost sight of true offshore racing. People need to push this sport back where it belongs, cool thing is, these people will find that the Need For Speed is more thrilling over rough water where it requires talent and balls at speeds that are much safer - stuff still happens, but I feel todays offshore safety equipment is good enough for "realistic offshore racing, not 50' rocket powered sleds. Although safety systems and technologies have advanced pretty well over the past few years, ----Honestly, and not arguing, but I personally disagree on this, I believe the cockpit enclosures may look better, but are no further ahead of 10-15 years ago. The Jesse James 50 and Popeyes 50 had the best money could design the speeds it is now possible to run have outpaced the ability of the safety systems to protect both occupants and spectators. ----Example. 46' Outerlimits went over at 150MPH, correct? Fully enclosed safety system, correct? There is always the G force that will get the racers if they survive all else.. The issue as I see it, as long as these events are available, somebody gonna be out there pushing it. And that is their right to do so. So, eliminate the events, or restrict/limit the HP and boat size to where they run close to the same, but then it will come down to setup and skills, not shear HP that is dependent on how much cash somebody is willing to spend. Just my 02 cents. And thanks for your input, this thread should be "stuck" at the top so others see it and maybe think about what is being said. Happy Sunday! |
Originally Posted by baditude
(Post 4493891)
The outerlimits was a removable hard top and went through the traps at 178
and both men actually survived |
Originally Posted by Nate5.0
(Post 4493894)
and both men actually survived
Not trying to stir this pot but we never think it's going to happen to us until it does. |
Originally Posted by jusabum
(Post 4493879)
SAGAIN, these are Offshore boats that were NEVER intended to go this fast or run in a straight line. Somehow, EVERYONE lost sight of true offshore racing.
|
I agree with Indy ^^^^^^
More fun to be had for an hour or two riding 60-70 mph in a chop offshore with other boats (like many of the sports founders did) than a half a minute blast on your own in a straight line on calm water. Not taking away from speed runs, the little I have been lucky enough to see are good to watch and generally good spectator viewing positions. The offshore racing does have an inherent problem for spectators but personally, I think it takes more skill and showcases what boats can do in adverse conditions. Offshore guys come home feeling tired, bruised and belted around but they do come home. :) Offshore is where it all started with big powerboats and will always hold the excitement for me. RR |
Originally Posted by rak rua
(Post 4493960)
I agree with Indy ^^^^^^
More fun to be had for an hour or two riding 60-70 mph in a chop offshore with other boats (like many of the sports founders did) than a half a minute blast on your own in a straight line on calm water. Not taking away from speed runs, the little I have been lucky enough to see are good to watch and generally good spectator viewing positions. The offshore racing does have an inherent problem for spectators but personally, I think it takes more skill and showcases what boats can do in adverse conditions. Offshore guys come home feeling tired, bruised and belted around but they do come home. :) Offshore is where it all started with big powerboats and will always hold the excitement for me. RR |
Originally Posted by rak rua
(Post 4493960)
I agree with Indy ^^^^^^
More fun to be had for an hour or two riding 60-70 mph in a chop offshore with other boats (like many of the sports founders did) than a half a minute blast on your own in a straight line on calm water. Not taking away from speed runs, the little I have been lucky enough to see are good to watch and generally good spectator viewing positions. The offshore racing does have an inherent problem for spectators but personally, I think it takes more skill and showcases what boats can do in adverse conditions. Offshore guys come home feeling tired, bruised and belted around but they do come home. :) Offshore is where it all started with big powerboats and will always hold the excitement for me. RR |
Originally Posted by flight club
(Post 4493999)
To each his own. Some like Nascar, Some like drag racing. Until You can personally take a 200mph blast you have no idea what the rush feels like. I've been boating many years over lots of big water and I will take the speed every time. That's just my personal opinion
@ Knot 4 Me, I think the risks are higher at higher speeds but don't deny there are risks at all levels. Unfortunately, you're right, there have been fatalities offshore too but I don't think quite so many. RR |
Originally Posted by Knot 4 Me
(Post 4494001)
Many offshore guys did not make it home.
|
Originally Posted by flight club
(Post 4493999)
To each his own. Some like Nascar, Some like drag racing. Until You can personally take a 200mph blast you have no idea what the rush feels like. I've been boating many years over lots of big water and I will take the speed every time. That's just my personal opinion
NOT BEING A SMART-ASS, a bar-stool type of question....obviously you can do whatever you want, so why do you choose an offshore boat versus a drag boat? |
Originally Posted by jusabum
(Post 4494073)
I have a question.
NOT BEING A SMART-ASS, a bar-stool type of question....obviously you can do whatever you want, so why do you choose an offshore boat versus a drag boat? |
I really think you can build a big cat to go 200 in controlled conditions fairly safely. Though it would entail building a boat specifically to do that, not stuffing enough horsepower in a boat designed to go 130 to overpower it to 200, Its not going to be a fun boat to pile several friends in and go barhopping or poker running in though.
|
Originally Posted by phragle
(Post 4494092)
I really think you can build a big cat to go 200 in controlled conditions fairly safely. Though it would entail building a boat specifically to do that, not stuffing enough horsepower in a boat designed to go 130 to overpower it to 200, Its not going to be a fun boat to pile several friends in and go barhopping or poker running in though.
|
Originally Posted by phragle
(Post 4494092)
I really think you can build a big cat to go 200 in controlled conditions fairly safely. Though it would entail building a boat specifically to do that, not stuffing enough horsepower in a boat designed to go 130 to overpower it to 200, Its not going to be a fun boat to pile several friends in and go barhopping or poker running in though.
but as Ron said resale is not good. Even parting the boat out. I think the Qatar team spent a lot of $$$ on research, trial & error before the big run. I think you made a wise choice Ron, keep it around 120-150mph and spend it with your friends. :drink: |
Here is an interesting control used in a somewhat similar situation; anti wheelie control. In the 20 second video you can see the system reacting three times to drop the nose of the bike. When fuel, spark and throttles are all under ECU control and you have a reliable sensor for angle, this obviously works. Boats are different of course. They achieve high angles just launching off waves sometimes when the system does not need to activate. Perhaps the system only needs to be active above a given speed. Main difference...the guy on the motorcycle isn't trying to take a sheet of plywood home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3b3BkMELAM |
Originally Posted by tomcat
(Post 4494128)
Here is an interesting control used in a somewhat similar situation; anti wheelie control. In the 20 second video you can see the system reacting three times to drop the nose of the bike. When fuel, spark and throttles are all under ECU control and you have a reliable sensor for angle, this obviously works. Boats are different of course. They achieve high angles just launching off waves sometimes when the system does not need to activate. Perhaps the system only needs to be active above a given speed. Main difference...the guy on the motorcycle isn't trying to take a sheet of plywood home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3b3BkMELAM The answer to your question is already there.. Yes offshoreboats see all kinds of angles, but only when they are being used as offshoreboats. When doing radar runs, shootouts and kilo's, they arent running offshore, they are running on a smooth controlled course. so those angles would not come into play unless things are going wrong, in which case you want the system to work. |
The Flight Club modified 368 was originally planning on being a 200+ boat with 2000+ HP engines. I remember conversations during its construction coming from Skater that basically said something funny happens at 190. This was 10 years ago. No doubt technology developed around the proven Mystics have come a long way. I think the fact that the FC boat ran as well as it did with limited testing says the boat will break 200 easily with a little more power. With the steel reinforced cage and canopy, the boat is "safer" than most.
I commend Ron for pulling out. There are many reasons the boat wasn't finished by the first partnership, but one I remember was the reality of how fast it was going to be and the wives pressure of "why"? Back then, 170 in an open 32 Skater was pretty nuts. My thought on these shootout boats vs drag boats is beyond the proven "safer" crashes of the top fuel boats, the expense or total loss of wrecking a $500k plus Skater etc. is way different than wrecking a spatula with 8000HP built to live 5 seconds. Even if you had a 100% chance of surviving a blow over, who is going to knowingly take a chance with a machine like these. Bottom line is 8 highly missed souls were lost this one season all in single boat accidents at speed. It is no doubt time for a breather and consideration of what these machines have quickly become. |
Originally Posted by TxHawk
(Post 4494141)
The Flight Club modified 368 was originally planning on being a 200+ boat with 2000+ HP engines. I remember conversations during its construction coming from Skater that basically said something funny happens at 190. This was 10 years ago. Back then, 170 in an open 32 Skater was pretty nuts.
:) |
Originally Posted by flight club
(Post 4494079)
I don't think I would fit in one. Lol. I would like to try to hydroplane once though
|
Contrary to popular belief, there has been some decent advancements recently in cat design to specifically address high speed stability. The one that come to mind is the 50' Statement which uses a radically redesigned tunnel entrance.
If you do some reading, you'll find they patented this design and somewhat claimed it solves the blow over problem. Much like a velocity stack, the design accelerates airflow thru the tunnel, and focuses that into "channels" I guess you'd call them near the stern. Hence the air exiting the tunnel is very clean and actually moving faster than the air around or over the boat. The aero guys can explain these benefits, but the popular "shake down" video looks super stable at 180mph. https://youtu.be/Wsc_qmnmKLw If they can figure out how to keep them from catching fire, maybe we'll get to see one go fast enough one day to prove their stability theory... |
Originally Posted by kidturbo
(Post 4494205)
Contrary to popular belief, there has been some decent advancements recently in cat design to specifically address high speed stability. The one that come to mind is the 50' Statement which uses a radically redesigned tunnel entrance.
If you do some reading, you'll find they patented this design and somewhat claimed it solves the blow over problem. Much like a velocity stack, the design accelerates airflow thru the tunnel, and focuses that into "channels" I guess you'd call them near the stern. Hence the air exiting the tunnel is very clean and actually moving faster than the air around or over the boat. The aero guys can explain these benefits, but the popular "shake down" video looks super stable at 180mph. https://youtu.be/Wsc_qmnmKLw If they can figure out how to keep them from catching fire, maybe we'll get to see one go fast enough one day to prove their stability theory... Also they have no real desire to see their boats go 200. The one they are building now used their design but was subbed out for the lay up. If you have noticed (which I am sure most have) they are sticking to what works for them CC's. I wouldn't be shocked if this is the last passion to roll out from them with turbine power. |
Originally Posted by Nate5.0
(Post 4494225)
Keep "them"...it was one boat and from a fluke accident.
Also they have no real desire to see their boats go 200. The one they are building now used their design but was subbed out for the lay up. If you have noticed (which I am sure most have) they are sticking to what works for them CC's. I wouldn't be shocked if this is the last passion to roll out from them with turbine power. That's not good sign. |
Originally Posted by jusabum
(Post 4494229)
Speaking of shocked, I didn't know they were still in business. There website is like 4 years out-dated and I haven't seen anything advertised.
That's not good sign. |
Originally Posted by nailit
(Post 4494191)
You could fit in Al Copelands "Phenomenon"! 56ft should doo the trick? Lol, they could never get lay down any good times, I think it the theoretical speed of 285?? It was for sale a while back.. not sure what happened to it.
|
Originally Posted by jusabum
(Post 4494229)
Speaking of shocked, I didn't know they were still in business. There website is like 4 years out-dated and I haven't seen anything advertised.
That's not good sign. I would say that is a good sign |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.