36ft Skater At Over 100mph
10-12-2002, 08:00 PM
#21
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 5,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John B,
The ONLY way I will disagree with you respectfully is to get a ride in that bad boy next summer!
Hey, I have to go with what you say...YOU have a 36 I have only a 24 and can only speak from what I have on read from Skater. So, therefore, I will concede to you, an OWNER of a 36!
The ONLY way I will disagree with you respectfully is to get a ride in that bad boy next summer!
Hey, I have to go with what you say...YOU have a 36 I have only a 24 and can only speak from what I have on read from Skater. So, therefore, I will concede to you, an OWNER of a 36!
10-12-2002, 10:41 PM
#23
I think we are in agreement on everything except that the bigger gears and shafts in the "drysump" 6 cause more hp loss. I "know" that this isn't true. With the BW tranny the MC6 may be a wash to a slight hp loss disadvantage. Also the hp loss in drives is rpm sensitive. As you start turning the r's up above the normal 5200-5400, the MC6 gets a clear advantage over the Bravo (of course, how many are turning over 6000rpm with a Bravo!). Weight and drag are the main culprits. Think of how many people you could put in your boat to make up the difference in weight( about 425lbs per side). A huge skeg and props designed for 1000hp don't help!
As for racing, acceleration is really a huge drag problem. You are carrying an extra 1000 lbs to accelerate up to speed (is this the APBA number?), now that the boat is lower in the water, the full MC6 gearcase is dragging as well as more boat because of the extra weight, and now you have to accelerate up those massive props which might hookup too well at lower speeds which hold the engines down from peak torque rpm a little longer. If the intent of the APBA weight number is to keep the "boat" weight the same for safety purposes, why not allow lab finishing a standard prop to some spec and allow SCS lockout trannies (which also weigh less than BW's so the weight spec could change accordingly)?
I have heard comments that these boats handle at speed better with 6's, probably because of the skeg. Along with a huge improvement in reliability, it could be the choice for more if it were just a little closer in max speed. I don't think that it's really that far off, but to some a couple of mph is too much, especially when it costs more to go slower (although it's probably made up for in resale value and peace of mind).
As for racing, acceleration is really a huge drag problem. You are carrying an extra 1000 lbs to accelerate up to speed (is this the APBA number?), now that the boat is lower in the water, the full MC6 gearcase is dragging as well as more boat because of the extra weight, and now you have to accelerate up those massive props which might hookup too well at lower speeds which hold the engines down from peak torque rpm a little longer. If the intent of the APBA weight number is to keep the "boat" weight the same for safety purposes, why not allow lab finishing a standard prop to some spec and allow SCS lockout trannies (which also weigh less than BW's so the weight spec could change accordingly)?
I have heard comments that these boats handle at speed better with 6's, probably because of the skeg. Along with a huge improvement in reliability, it could be the choice for more if it were just a little closer in max speed. I don't think that it's really that far off, but to some a couple of mph is too much, especially when it costs more to go slower (although it's probably made up for in resale value and peace of mind).
