y2k bottom evolution
 

Is there some design differences in the bottoms from the first years made vs the later hulls?

MD

WHAT ! You didn't believe me ? Rick please chime in and explain the changes

Some people believe , Some people will know , and some people will have to find out the hard way !

Haa. I believed you enough to look more into it.
There's not a lot of info on it, & I'm really curious.

The original Y2K bottom had 3 steps. The newer ones have 2. Newer hull is faster

Thanks Rick.
Maybe some time you could elaborate on the changes, reason for them etc....
Funny I've never even picked up on the 3/2 step. Guess I haven't seen that many though.

Like to learn some more.

+ superboat is dead.

Scarab what you mean Superboat is dead?

He means there's nothing happening on the Forum and were trying to wake it up and get somebody talking , building something or buying something new to them

Ha, reminds me of years ago when I was basically talking to myself on this forum.

Back to the point. There have been differences in the transom notch over the years too. I've seen a Y2K or two with the notch that goes all the way across the transom. Mine does not.

I remember those days Dave. John C should pay Rick to do some advertizing by documenting a boat build. I'm quite shure that's sold a few boat for him.

Hey Patrick! I haven't seen you online for a long time. I don't spend nearly as much time here as I used too either.

I'm still enjoying "Superstitious". Lost an outdrive last yr...OUCH! All good other than that. I am starting to take a liking to the center consoles, particularly Concepts.

What year did the hull design change on the Y2K's?

Somewhere around 2007/2008. I think "Oh-Zones" was the first with the newer bottom. His is a 2008.

07 ! Mine and Superbaby's and Johns all have the new bottom

I don't think Superbabi has the new bottom. It was built a few boats before mine.

Correct Dave, Superbabi has one of the last old bottoms, too bad, a Good boat could have been a Great boat.

Hows the handling between the two designs? Always been partial to more but smaller steps for better handling. How do the size and placement of the steps compare to the 2 vs 3 designs?

Yea that was a brain fart on my end . I've even talked about Superbaby having the old bottom in other threads

I doubt there is a noticable difference.

It's very noticeable. The bow rides much higher with the newer bottom. And it's a few MPH faster

I stand corrected. Definitely a speed diff. if what OH-Zone was quoting, 86MPH? I'm only seeing about 78, 80 once or twice.

ummm, and mine to :)

Superstitious is Super Sweet!
 

I spent a few days prop testing with Gary and ran with him here on the CT River and LI Sound a number of times. He had Rick and John build that boat with all the best in mind. Good to hear she's treating you right!
I didn't remember if she had the newer bottom but I do remember the drive was set pretty high with the ITS. I think Rick/John solved a lot of the bow lift issues with the new bottom. Superstitious always looked like she road plenty high as she ripped past me.
As for OSO and my online boat chatting, I spend more time over on Donzi.net these days. My interest have changed a bit. I find my self dragging the kids around on the tube, pulling skiers, and hanging at beaches 2-3miles from our marina. Smaller boats fit the bill better these days. Maybe I'll get back into larger boats down the line...
Good to stop by and check in with the Superboat crew every now and then...:cool:

Wow speeds up to 86 . Thats pretty good. But not every boat was in a magazine like Daves. I remember the East West shootout with Daves boat. That was Awesome !!

I can vouch for the fact that the older hull does NOT ride high in the bow, nor does it like much trim. Are there any race boats with the new hull? Seems like they are all the older ones.

Ted G why do you say it does not like a lot of trim? Also from what I have been told the new hull is about only 2 to 3 mph faster. Is this accurate?

My boat runs well and goes faster at the same throttle setting until you trim the drive up to 3.5-4 on the indicator, then the prop starts to slip more and speed goes down. If you are running WOT you can trim up to 6-7, but the results are negligible. I think the 2-3 mph number is correct, but have not seen two identical boats run against each other to see it. (Like in F1 racing).

2 years into the hull and your running her all wrong, must be all that Low Hp your your pushing thru her prop.

A little over 75 GPS with a four blade prop and 500 hp and I'm running it wrong? How so? In full race trim the F1 boats only ran 77-79 when light? And I can cruise 60 at 3 MPG with the Maximus, not sure how you are gonna get much more out of it. BTW, I think the Maximus was part of your performance problems, when I had it prop scanned there was over an inch pitch variation between the blades, it runs much cleaner now that it was trued up to an even 26 on all 5 blades.

Lighten up Ted, just playing with you !!! Although Superbabi was built for Big hp.

Must be why she has treated me so well, taking it easy on her in her golden years :lolhit:

LOL ! Busted a laugh on that one ..
Ted the race layup boats are heavier not lighter and one thing that has been proven is that all the Y2k run different

Any comparison in x-dimensions? Bet the propshaft heights have varied a bunch depending on the expected application. Willing to be superbabi is set high and hence not much reaction to trim.

Ted just playing with you but a quote from May 2011..

I thought you were gonna get in the 80-90 club and now your selling it . What are you switching to ?

Coen found an X that worked well and stuck with it ! The lack of trim reaction is from lack of HP . 800 with that same trim would make dramatic changes in the attitude . I'm not knocking the HP in Ted's boat either because it looks like he's getting killer MPG and running in the 70's is still a lot of fun

Pretty sure mine is race layup too, Gary pretty much bought everything in the catalog :lolhit: When I said light I mean low fuel and not much stuff, mine has stereo, porta pottie, cooler, etc, etc.

I did go faster than 74...just not much. I had/have access to LOTS more power if I wanted it, but then I would get into drive issues so I left well enough alone. And gas mileage is a good thing:party-smiley-004:

If I sell it we are looking at an Intrepid Center Console, just like everyone else with performance boats right now :whistle:

Have you tried dumping to porta-pottie :lolhit: ?????

Has anyone had problems with reversion with their y2k. The owner I bought my boat from had lots of trouble with this. Has had to have the motor redone a few times due to this. The boats sit low in the back and with the swim platform and side supports coming out to the platform it makes a perfect trap for water when stoping or reversing or just waves while idling. He had to have the exhaust modified with a 4in extension on top of the thunder exhaust manifolds to increase the angle of decent going out thru the transom. The motor is a big cubic in 565 with a pretty large cam witch doesn't help matters. I am wanting to put my CMI sport tube headers on but don't know if it would be a bad decision and possibly make the reversion situation worse.

Yes, ideally you should run dry exhaust with that engine and I added flappers on my exhaust pipes to help some. On one occasion it gulped water in reverse and almost died, a little throttle blip cleared it.

I'm running rubber flappers on the outside too. I had internal flappers but they made an annoying rattling sound so I took them out. I'm always real careful coming off plane.

Oh, and my boat doesn't require a lot of trim either. About "3" on the indicator is my sweet spot. I have ITS though, not sure how that factors in.