I agree 200% with this. Arneson would not be my first choice or second. With a single engine you really need the boat to sit back on the drive. As soon as it doesn't your in trouble.

Aussie ski boats put some torque through theirs. Granted, they don't have near the weight you will be pushing though.

That must be one of those jet drive number six drives..........

You can get thr boat to sit back on an arneson. A guy i knew had a single asd on a 28 apache with big power. Mighty mouse the 1000 hp 18donzi has a huge vertical rudder on his asd and a good sized horizontal fin to trim the boat. Id venture a guess its a lot more critical on an 18" boat than a 29 when both are running an asd with a 1000 ponies in front of it!

Holy cow! There's barely enough room for the size balls you would need to ride in and/or drive that thing

There are three sets of reduction gears in the nose cone so the impeller spins 75,000 rpms. Lol

Actually his gf is polishing the shaft to a chrome like finnish by hand using only saliva as a polishing compound. How do you get to carnigie hall practice baby... rm

The 29 really is a big boat for a single engine. Its really 30.6 length and 8.6 beam. The bottom hull design has fairly large twin serpentine steps and again is a single engine. I believe Lavey Craft has done 3 twin engine installs in this app only. Maybe it was 2 twin apps only and all the rest have been singles. Most of the drive combos has been Bravo and there is Teague Platinum Series drives installed as well. Most have no set back for the 29 and if I recall I have never seen a 29 with any set back on them period nor even an ITS, Again I am talking about the 29 here only. Many 2750 and the 28 EVO did install ITS but not all. About 4 times the amount of 2750's were made compared to the 29's. Anyways I have never recalled even seeing a full 12 inch set back on a Lavey Craft no matter the model for any single engine apps.

I do not want to be the experiment one with a 29 going against what has worked for them up to this point and timeframe. The money also becomes an issue. Trial an error IMO would be mostly setbacks or at least in my own mind believe it would be especially with NOT an OPEN CHECKBOOK.


www.laveycraft.com

Hence the SCX upper with the SC lower ......... all worked over by Teague. (I think that's the conclusion we came to isn't it? I forget, we've had so many discussions about this)

I knew from the start SCX was in the mix and always wondered how an SCX lower was going to fair with this hull and being a single engine app. Even before I ever talked to Lavey Craft about Arenson plus we meaning Mark and myself talked about the Arenson would not be the right choice for this hull. Just saying and not going into full detail because I have talked about a lot. Anyways currently, the thoughts are SCX upper and the SC lower. And with no setback to start out.

No Teague workover on the SCX / SC combo that was if I went with his stuff.

www.laveycraft.com

I think someone was blowing smoke your way. The big benefit of a SSM 6, is having dual vertical shafts, with dual gearsets in the lower. Properly setup, each gear and shaft, has to withstand 50% of the torque load. Not 100%. Benefit? You can run smaller diameter gears, and a more efficient lower case. The uppers gears and shafts are plenty big to handle the power. Its a design thats been around for several decades now, and race proven. It was used in the SSM 3,4,5,6, and now 8. Mercury never had a cone clutched drive that successfully handled power that you will be making.

Personally, I think you'll be chunking those standard SC lower gears, especially if you run hard in anything other than flat water. Either way, awesome build, looking forward to the results.