Re: Changes needed
 

I agree 100% with the statement. And would add that when you take the pad bottom design and begin to add weight it is not intended to carry the ride no doubt suffers, it is designed to run high and light on the water, not thru it. When you then also make the design taller, to add that cabin space, you are again asking the bottom to do something else it was not intended to do, in balancing the top heavy design, and then the ill handling (chine walking) characteristics begin to show. A pad bottom needs to be balanced in order to run properly, and the higher the balance point becomes, the more difficult it becomes to achieve that balanced attitude. The addition of weight foreward has the same basic effect, resulting in the hull wanting more positive trim in order to "sit" on the pad and results in more ill handling traits.

To handle properly the pad bottom design needs to run at a relatively flat attitude with a relatively neutral drive angle. No doubt the reason the unmolested 26/280 remains a popular model. No doubt the reason, opposite effect, that the 32/320 never made it. Too high a CG, too small and short a pad to balance the boat, thus the ill handling reputation. The pad on the 32/320 is/was smaller/shorter than that of the 26/280, it was by it's design and the manner in which it was constructed, destined to be a failure in some aspects right from the git-go.

Re: Changes needed
 

I agree that there will always be trade-offs--that seems pretty obvious. I can't agree that performance and features are mutually exclusive. The Corvette still stands as an excellent analogy--it is not a stripper car but is still one of the best performers. Would it perform a little better without a/c, cushy seats, etc--yes. Would I consider it--no.

Here's another example closer to home: Fountain. One of the fastest boats on the water and it has glass windshields, bow rails, anchor locker, etc. I'm not saying Velocity should copy them for the sake of copying, but put features on the boat to make it versatile.

Interesting that you picked the Donzi 27, it is a good example of what I am talking about. Comparing to a Velocity 290SC,
the Donzi is smaller and has fewer features than what I am looking for (I've already ruled it out), yet both boats go around 70 mph on an HO. Your opinion will vary!

On the topic of "tall" decks and trade-offs, Velocity offers both styles on the 29 and this makes a good comparison. The VR-1 is a little better performing and so it is closer to your idea of "hardcore", but the SC is a much more versatile boat with 95% of the speed. I think it’s great that Velocity can offer both boats and maybe that is a good solution. Just don't quit the SC version please :p

Re: Changes needed
 

I think a better analogy would be a BMW M5. :D :D 4 doors, luxury and plenty of HP. :D ;)

The 30' we had was a great boat. It was an 88' so it was a regal boat. However, the performance was un-matched to any other comparable boat with the same or slightly more hp.

The pad hull design with the off-set/step transom is a great design (My Allison has a very similar design. ;) ;) :D ) And like my Allison, it is a drivers boat. Don't change that.

Re: Changes needed
 

#1 The tall glass windshield is UGLY
#2 The 290 Sc,was a nice shot but in the wrong direction
#3 The 26/280 is the best bang for the buck
#4The 320.The more power the better the ride.
#5 The 22 thru the 41/Use caulk and seals on the transom.
#6 The pad design is not designrd to carry all of the extra BS that is being put into the new boats,if you want to put all of the other crap in a Velocity they need to design a new hull just for the cruiser minded people and the HOT ROD that Velocity is known for alone.

Re: Changes needed
 

Well Dave, It seems you have plenty to do with all this information. Sheez, are you sorry you asked? Good Luck! Dave

Re: Changes needed
 

Hopefully not. I personally think it shows a true interest on his part to make some changes to turn things around.

Re: Changes needed
 

Dave i saw your boat at the toys for tots run last weekend we were down from North Carolina was hopping to get to meet you, sorry we did not get hooked up after the run , made next time . Mike

Re: Changes needed
 

"Plenty to do" is a matter of opinion. Further more, no business person with a commitment to their product and customer would ask for suggestions and then be sorry for asking. There is much to be said for maintaining the core features that set Velocity apart from others, and ultimately maintain a strong following. I can tell you first hand that suggestions are being applied, while hanging on what we like. Nice job Dave.

Re: Changes needed
 

I have never owned a Velocity and the main reason why is the extreme light lay up. I have seen Velocity boats with tons of spider cracks and know of quiet a few that have delaminated or completly broke apart. Thus the term I keep hearing in the boating industry about Velocity boats is the term "potato chip boat".
VelocityGM I highly comend you for coming on here and asking members for there thoughts on Velocity. I hope you get them turned around. The 22 was the first performance boat I ever wanted way back when after I read a boat test magazine boat it. It was fast and I could of afforded it at the time but I went with another brand.
good luck, Mike

Re: Changes needed
 

Im glad I asked!

Hope all is well with you Dave!