PDA

View Full Version : 16 OB Baby Owners - How Many Are Left?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Greg Guimond
11-27-2013, 05:53 PM
What, I thought your 16 was/is an IO ?

woobs
11-27-2013, 06:05 PM
Sorry Greg, I am TOTALLY kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My boat had a Johnson bolted on the back at one point but, I have no doubt in my mind that it was an Eaton i/o from the factory.

Just havin' a little fun with the ease of how history gets muddled and stories perpetuated...
I think I'll go have that 3rd glass of wine now.

...although, that does look like a 1968 Johnson on the back... no, really, ...just kidding. :eek:

Greg Guimond
11-27-2013, 06:45 PM
That's funny, my Cliff Claven head almost exploded :p

Greg Guimond
11-27-2013, 07:04 PM
I've never seen one that was built before 1970.

This odd quest for old weed eaters started 3 years ago ...... :nilly: :nilly:

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 08:55 AM
Here is a series of very old posts about the very early Donzi builds. It starts on January 24, 2001.
It includes "ALLAN BROWN" aka Brownie, "lou" aka Dr. Lou Benz owner of the purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB1, and "BIG BAD DONZI" who is Don Aronow's son Michael.


01-24-2001
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

DONZI SALES WERE A GEOGRAPHIC RESULT OF THE EARLY DEALERS. WHEN WE WERE BOUGHT BY TELEFLEX IN APRIL 1965, WE HAD TELEFLEX REP'S SELLING FOR US. THEY SIGNED UP A LOAD OF DEALERS IN NY, NJ, MICH, AND A FEW IN CAL, WASHINGTON, AND SW AREAS. LITERALLY ALL OF THE EARLY OFFSHORE RACING DEVELOPMENT WAS CENTERED IN MIAMI. WE ALSO SOLD A BUNCH OF BOATS DIRECT. BOATING WRITERS WERE HUNGRY FOR GOOD STORIES THEN (AS THEY ARE NOW) AND WE HAD LOTS OF THEM. WE GOT TONS OF PUBLICITY. OFFSHORE RACING WAS AT ITS PEAK IN THE MIDDLE SIXTIES. YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IT, BUT UNTIL 1963/4, THERE WERE “EXACTLY 3” OFFSHORE RACES IN THE WORLD. MIAMI-NASSAU, COWES-TORQUAY IN ENGLAND, AND AROUND LONG ISLAND. BACK THEN THERE WERE DAMN FEW "PURPOSE BUILT" RACEBOATS OR ENGINES. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. AS FAR AS CALIFORNIA IS CONCERNED, BILL WISHNICK, BOBBY MOORE AND I WON THE INAUGURAL OFFSHORE RACE THERE IN 1965, THE “HENNESSEY LONG BEACH-CATALINA CHALLENGE”. AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS - BOB NORDSKOG IN A SK BOAT, AND SOME JERK IN A CENTURY CORONADO. THOSE WERE THE DAYS.......


06-01-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

Welcome to donzi.net Desert Fox. I have a 1965 Outboard Donzi that was the Evinrude Starflite show boat , it belonged to Gerry Walin. I have seen a red & white ‘69 with a Mercury outboard. The early outboards were all left hand drive (see the picture at the top) while the later ones were right hand drive. They were mostly sold from ‘71 to ‘74 and those show up for sale on occasion. I was told that fewer than 900 were built.


07-07-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Formula Jr., you've got the time line correct on the 16', 19', 28'and 18’. These were the molds that were sold to Teleflex in late ‘65. During the 63-65 years, the Magnum 35 was designed. It was originally intended to become the Donzi 35 but the molds were not completed before the Teleflex sale and thus, were not included. While I remember Don tinkering with experimentals of various sizes in a couple of the warehouses he leased in West North Miami Beach, I do not remember any 24 footer. The baby 14’s could have been Don's designs but he never produced any for the public while he owned Donzi. After ‘65, I have no direct knowledge as to what designs and/or production models the subsequent owners came up with.


10-01-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

BIG BAD DONZI, my 1965 16 outboard belonged to Gerry Walin. He was the first owner, and I also have a money clip with the Starflight IV insignia that was given to him by Evinrude for setting a speed record. It was one of the first Donzi’s built.


10-01-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Lou, if Gerry is still around, ask him if he had the transom customized himself in order to make it outboard compatible. Production Donzi 16s did not leave the factory that way in ‘65.


10-02-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

Big Bad Donzi: The boat was made this way by Donzi. Walin was a Donzi & Evinrude Dealer up north and sold both inboards and outboards. Don knew him very well. This was Gerry's personal boat. He put a 135hp Evinrude Starflite motor on it. I purchased the boat in 1976 from Jack Leek when I worked for Bertram in Miami.


10-02-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Lou, that was a hell of an achievement by Gerry hitting those speeds back in the 60's. Still do not recall any Outboard 16’s being produced in 65 but Don did special things for his friends and this might have been one of those. All the Best.


10-03-2001
Tito
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 21

I know Lou and I have seen his 16 outboard run. I have been wrenching on boats since I worked for River Marine in '63, and he may be too modest to tell you, but his Donzi outboard blew my 1970 H&M Donzi 16 away. His boat has an Evinrude V-4 135 that is a factory race motor. It has four exhaust pipes the size of softball bats and only a two bladed prop. It sounds like an airplane and it SCREAMS! Whatever has been done on that motor is working right as I also was a non-believer. He also owns a wicked 45zx and has a SH*T load of toys.


11-29-01
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

I left Donzi on Halloween 1967, and until then we had not built any stinkin Outboard 16's. It was a product of the Chisholm brothers after the recession of 1970. Jr, your time table is a little off. Aronow, ‘64 up to April ‘65. Teleflex, April ‘65 to Halloween ‘67.Chisholm brothers, Halloween 1967 to Genth.


07-24-2008
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

16' Donzi O/B? - Several years ago, someone found an Outboard Donzi near Seattle, Washington with a 4 cylinder, “stacker” OMC engine. Anyone have any knowledge of that? Thanks.
BROWNIE

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 09:00 AM
And here is an email exchange that confirms that Bryant's Marina in Seattle was a Donzi dealer in the late 1960's and that Allan Brown seems to recall the 1965 boat with the "special race" OB.

This one you will want to read from the bottom up.



From:Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Allan Brown
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Ok thx




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 20134:52 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Subject:RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

That I don't know.





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:39 PM
To: Allan Brown
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Any chance you remember if Gerry Walin bought a Donzi 16 through Bryant's during those 5 or so years?




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 2013 4:32 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Subject:RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

5 or so





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Allan Brown
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Thank you Sir. Do you happen to remember roughly how many years Bryant's was a Donzi dealer?




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 August 20133:55 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject:RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Yes. George Babcock owned it, Bill Muncie worked there.





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 5:59 PM
To: Fred Darwick; “Allan Brown”
Subject: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Hello,
Do either of you happen to recall if there was place in Washington state by the name of "Bryant's Marina" (Jerry Bryant) that would have been a Donzi dealer in '65 '66 '67? Thank you kindly.




From: Greg Guimond
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:58AM
To: Fred Darwick
Cc: ALLAN BROWN
Subject:Re: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

Thank you both and here is that picture in 1974. Gerry was paralyzed in that record attempt crash and two years later sadly killed himself. Do you know by chance if Gerry was ever a dealer for Donzi in the late 60's or early 70's? And also do you know if he was actually friends with Don A? Again, thank you both should you reply.

From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 29 June 2013 9:22 AM
To: Greg Guimond
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject:RE: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

I know the boat. It is in Washington state. It was bought thru George Babcock/Bill Muncey from their dealership. Gerry was the record holder for Evinrude. There is a fabulous picture of Gerry completely off the water in his hydro. He crashed and was totally smashed up. I think he later killed himself. What else do you want to know?

Brownie

From:Fred Darwick
To: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:16 AM
Subject: Re:Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin



Sorry, I have no clue. I am fwding to Allan 'Brownie' Brown for his response.
Fred


From: Greg Guimond
Date: Fri, 28 June 2013 10:58 AM
To: Fred Darwick
Subject: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin


Hello Mr. Darwick, if this email reaches you I am researching an early 16 that purportedly was built by Don Aronow for the late racer Gerry Walin in the 1960's. I know you have extensive experience with these 16's over many years. Does this possibly ring any bells to you? Thank you very much

mattyboy
11-29-2013, 09:54 AM
Greg

just some thoughts

lou's 65 outboard has the transom well cut on an angle were all the factory prototype and the OMC 18 prototype have a rounded two level transom well. The production 16 has a one level rounded transom well. The prototype 16 had canvas to cover holes and missing hatches lou's is all glassed in which means someone had the time to do that. the factory would be hard pressed to take the time to do that




Brownie states that the sale to Teleflex was complete by april of 65 and the first production 16 made the show in nov of 64 in jax fla . this means Don was at the helm of Donzi for a very short time as far as production is concerned.

we have Michael A and Brownie both recalling that they can't recall an OB 16 being factory made . I would imagine the 65 OB in question would have been modified and rigged outside of the factory.

The 16 OB prototype hull 452 is invoiced after Halloween of 67 when Brownie had departed from Donzi.


I'm still compiling the story on hull 452 hopefully I can get more info on the early years

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 10:00 AM
You are making some very good observations and its been fun to do the forensics. I am going to reply in between your lines.

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 10:22 AM
Greg

just some thoughts

lou's 65 outboard has the transom well cut on an angle were all the factory prototype and the OMC 18 prototype have a rounded two level transom well. The production 16 has a one level rounded transom well. The prototype 16 had canvas to cover holes and missing hatches lou's is all glassed in which means someone had the time to do that. the factory would be hard pressed to take the time to do that

I am 50/50 with you here Matty. You have made an excellent observation. Do you have a photo of the transom well of the #452 1967 OB 16? The 1965 16 OB boat could have very well had "additional" splash well work done to it over the later years which would not preclude it from being built as an OB from the factory.


Brownie states that the sale to Teleflex was complete by april of 65 and the first production 16 made the show in nov of 64 in jax fla . this means Don was at the helm of Donzi for a very short time as far as production is concerned.

I am 60/40 with you on this one Matty but Don was a Wildman and knocking out a prototype 16 OB would not have been any big deal, especially considering Michael Aronow's disclosure in his post of the "other warehouse" that Donzi had. Was that the skunk works location perhaps?

we have Michael A and Brownie both recalling that they can't recall an OB 16 being factory made . I would imagine the 65 OB in question would have been modified and rigged outside of the factory.

I am 40/60 against you on this one. Michael A also says that Don did "special things" and then Brownie in his email to me says he "knows the boat". What do you make of him saying he knows the boat?

The 16 OB prototype hull 452 is invoiced after Halloween of 67 when Brownie had departed from Donzi.

Hmmm ..... Brownie also asks in one of his posts about the Washington 16 OB with OMC "Stacker" and then says he knows the boat I am asking about as being in the Northwest


I'm still compiling the story on hull 452 hopefully I can get more info on the early years

My thoughts above ...........

mattyboy
11-29-2013, 10:58 AM
Greg

I am just waiting to see if i can get any more info on hull 452 then I will publish the story as in any older classic it has had some work done to it over the years.

so if the first production 16 is nov of 64 and the company is sold in april of 65 that is 6 months to develop the 18 and the 35 plus start up production on the 16 and keep racing operations going .

again I do not doubt the hotrodded rude wound up on a 65 I do think the boat exists I just think that the factory had not made it that way. Is it possible Don got a call asking for a boat and he got an unrigged one sent sure . the record was set in 66 by this motor or one like it on another hull.

the off site skunk works I bet had it hands full making 28s as the 28 was built off site then finished at 188 th st. they made quite a few 28s raceboats the 35 was also probably in the works as well at that site

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 11:09 AM
Good observations but still some more digging to do. There are not many people left alive who would know...........

Allan Brown (80)
Charles Strang (92)
Jeff Titus (?)
Rick Sandstrom (?)

and some dang German guy who owns the '65 16 OB now evidently and won't give up the details. :hangum:

mattyboy
11-29-2013, 12:32 PM
Greg

some more info to mull over


Jerry Langer's 1965 winning 19 foot race boat on page 40 of Micahel's book KOTBR shows a 19 foot hull made into an OB two key features are there

1. a rounded cut into the transom for the outboard motors

2. the deck is made up of a canvas cover which could mean they didn't have time to re tool the deck mold. I can understand the weight saving of a canvas deck but i would imagine in open ocean racing the strength and rigidity a deck provides outweighs the weight saving.


both features appear to be the normal factory OB modus operandi

bertsboat
11-29-2013, 09:19 PM
Marty, I'll call Brownie tomorrow too to see what he remembers about the Breuil boat. He was close to them too and I am thinking he will remember Tim's boat.
Bert

Greg Guimond
11-29-2013, 10:15 PM
Greg

some more info to mull over


Jerry Langer's 1965 winning 19 foot race boat on page 40 of Micahel's book KOTBR shows a 19 foot hull made into an OB two key features are there

1. a rounded cut into the transom for the outboard motors

2. the deck is made up of a canvas cover which could mean they didn't have time to re tool the deck mold. I can understand the weight saving of a canvas deck but i would imagine in open ocean racing the strength and rigidity a deck provides outweighs the weight saving.


both features appear to be the normal factory OB modus operandi


Matty, post a clear picture of the Langer hull's transom if you have it. I have seen the 1965 Donzi 19 footer with the dual Evinrude's but never with good resolution

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 06:55 AM
Greg

that will take some time I don't think the flatbed scanner the kids left home works.

the boat pictured is a triple 90 rude setup the middle one is lower than to 2 outside ones and I can only imagine that they used the ST Tropez as the driver navigator are front and back ( not side to side like a benchseat hornet) and the navigator looks like he is where the doghouse for the motor would be . It could be a st tropez and the canvas deck is there for aerodynamics now that I think about it.

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 07:41 AM
Greg

this is the best I can do for now on the 19 pic


that pic you posted of the donzi factory in 64 appears in KOTBR as well it says it is the formula factory in late 62 it did eventually become Donzi

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 08:09 AM
Matty, I am re-posting this with some of my thoughts in red below

Here is a series of very old posts about the very early Donzi builds. It starts on January 24, 2001.
It includes "ALLAN BROWN" aka Brownie, "lou" aka Dr. Lou Benz owner of the purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB1, and "BIG BAD DONZI" who is Don Aronow's son Michael.


01-24-2001
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

DONZI SALES WERE A GEOGRAPHIC RESULT OF THE EARLY DEALERS. WHEN WE WERE BOUGHT BY TELEFLEX IN APRIL 1965, WE HAD TELEFLEX REP'S SELLING FOR US. THEY SIGNED UP A LOAD OF DEALERS IN NY, NJ, MICH, AND A FEW IN CAL, WASHINGTON, AND SW AREAS. LITERALLY ALL OF THE EARLY OFFSHORE RACING DEVELOPMENT WAS CENTERED IN MIAMI. WE ALSO SOLD A BUNCH OF BOATS DIRECT. BOATING WRITERS WERE HUNGRY FOR GOOD STORIES THEN (AS THEY ARE NOW) AND WE HAD LOTS OF THEM. WE GOT TONS OF PUBLICITY. OFFSHORE RACING WAS AT ITS PEAK IN THE MIDDLE SIXTIES. YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IT, BUT UNTIL 1963/4, THERE WERE “EXACTLY 3” OFFSHORE RACES IN THE WORLD. MIAMI-NASSAU, COWES-TORQUAY IN ENGLAND, AND AROUND LONG ISLAND. BACK THEN THERE WERE DAMN FEW "PURPOSE BUILT" RACEBOATS OR ENGINES. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. AS FAR AS CALIFORNIA IS CONCERNED, BILL WISHNICK, BOBBY MOORE AND I WON THE INAUGURAL OFFSHORE RACE THERE IN 1965, THE “HENNESSEY LONG BEACH-CATALINA CHALLENGE”. AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS - BOB NORDSKOG IN A SK BOAT, AND SOME JERK IN A CENTURY CORONADO. THOSE WERE THE DAYS.......

This post confirms that there were Donzi Dealers in Washington State and that some boats got sold direct to an individual


06-01-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

Welcome to donzi.net Desert Fox. I have a 1965 Outboard Donzi that was the Evinrude Starflite show boat , it belonged to Gerry Walin. I have seen a red & white ‘69 with a Mercury outboard. The early outboards were all left hand drive (see the picture at the top) while the later ones were right hand drive. They were mostly sold from ‘71 to ‘74 and those show up for sale on occasion. I was told that fewer than 900 were built.

The suggestion in this post that the 1965 Donzi 16 OB1 was in some way an Evinrude show boat is another bread crumb that has no historical reference. Charles Strang was not with OMC yet so he would not know. Who would? Is there any Evinrude 1965 show pictures?

07-07-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Formula Jr., you've got the time line correct on the 16', 19', 28'and 18’. These were the molds that were sold to Teleflex in late ‘65. During the 63-65 years, the Magnum 35 was designed. It was originally intended to become the Donzi 35 but the molds were not completed before the Teleflex sale and thus, were not included. While I remember Don tinkering with experimentals of various sizes in a couple of the warehouses he leased in West North Miami Beach, I do not remember any 24 footer. The baby 14’s could have been Don's designs but he never produced any for the public while he owned Donzi. After ‘65, I have no direct knowledge as to what designs and/or production models the subsequent owners came up with.

Michael Aronow making a suggestion that his father Don tinkered with experimental hulls. The Langer driven triple OMC outboard Donzi 19 must have been one such example. How was Don tied in with OMC? Or was Langer tied with OMC and Don then was friends with Jerry Langer?


10-01-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

BIG BAD DONZI, my 1965 16 outboard belonged to Gerry Walin. He was the first owner, and I also have a money clip with the Starflight IV insignia that was given to him by Evinrude for setting a speed record. It was one of the first Donzi’s built.


10-01-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Lou, if Gerry is still around, ask him if he had the transom customized himself in order to make it outboard compatible. Production Donzi 16s did not leave the factory that way in ‘65.


10-02-2001
lou
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113

Big Bad Donzi: The boat was made this way by Donzi. Walin was a Donzi & Evinrude Dealer up north and sold both inboards and outboards. Don knew him very well. This was Gerry's personal boat. He put a 135hp Evinrude Starflite motor on it. I purchased the boat in 1976 from Jack Leek when I worked for Bertram in Miami.

There is absolutely no marine history to support that Gerry Walin was ever a Donzi or an Evinrude dealer in his 10 year race career. He would have been in his 30's when he took his own life in 1976. I believe that "lou" is actually talking about Bryant's Marine in Seattle. Bryant's was a Donzi dealer in the '60s and was a VERY large Evinrude dealer. Gerry was in Seattle and knew all the Bryant's folks well. It is now very possible that Bryant's could have been the FOB destination of the 1965 Donzi.


10-02-2001
BIG BAD DONZI
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 128

Lou, that was a hell of an achievement by Gerry hitting those speeds back in the 60's. Still do not recall any Outboard 16’s being produced in 65 but Don did special things for his friends and this might have been one of those. All the Best.


10-03-2001
Tito
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 21

I know Lou and I have seen his 16 outboard run. I have been wrenching on boats since I worked for River Marine in '63, and he may be too modest to tell you, but his Donzi outboard blew my 1970 H&M Donzi 16 away. His boat has an Evinrude V-4 135 that is a factory race motor. It has four exhaust pipes the size of softball bats and only a two bladed prop. It sounds like an airplane and it SCREAMS! Whatever has been done on that motor is working right as I also was a non-believer. He also owns a wicked 45zx and has a SH*T load of toys.


11-29-01
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

I left Donzi on Halloween 1967, and until then we had not built any stinkin Outboard 16's. It was a product of the Chisholm brothers after the recession of 1970. Jr, your time table is a little off. Aronow, ‘64 up to April ‘65. Teleflex, April ‘65 to Halloween ‘67.Chisholm brothers, Halloween 1967 to Genth.

This does not seem to be 100% accurate as 1967 OB Hull #452 was sold in November 1967. Did Brownie leave in October and then hull #452 was built and delivered in November 1967? I think Allan Brown is really talking about "production" 16 Baby hulls.


07-24-2008
ALLAN BROWN
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 345

16' Donzi O/B? - Several years ago, someone found an Outboard Donzi near Seattle, Washington with a 4 cylinder, “stacker” OMC engine. Anyone have any knowledge of that? Thanks.
BROWNIE

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 08:58 AM
Jerry Langer was always an O/B guy and had the OMC dealership in South Miami for eons. Even his last race boat, his Mag 27, had two outboards (OMCs) on it . If he and Don's relationship went back for years, which it probably did, he probably told Don that he only wanted an O/B hull and Don obliged.

Morgan's Cloud ties it together .........

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 09:43 AM
Greg

a few things on the pics of lou's 65

why is the floor hvac vent in the rear seat base there that would be the air intake and on a 65 the the outlet was the blower on the back deck transom lip which is not there? looks like glasswork on the dash area in gauge area and there is a cutout on the left side of the wheel on the dash usually where the lift switch is for an I/O

Langer boat was a raceboat and with that win the best PR for the 19


with Brownie leaving by Halloween of 67 I think that is 100% accurate I don't think he had any personal knowledge of hull 452 which is sold on Nov 16 67 then he refers to the production run of the babies in 1970s

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:03 AM
I think Matty that any of the early OB 16's would have been pulled as I/O's thus the floor vent. The factory would have pulled a hull and then starting cutting for the wacker. The purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB1 was a center steer boat according to "lou" which would have been consistent with the Langer 19 Donzi. I am kinda honing in on the fact that Brownie had to be there with Don when 1967 #452 was built. Also, Brownie says with 100% certainty in his email that he knows the 1965 16 OB1. I have a couple of other bread crumbs that I am tracking down on the 1965 now that it looks like my yearly goal to boat until Xmas is in the chitter.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:12 AM
Greg, with Brownie leaving by Halloween of 1967 I don't think he had any personal knowledge of hull #452 which is sold on November 16, 1967

Halloween always falls on October 31st. This would also make accounting sense as the day Brownie left as it was also the end of the payroll month. If Allan Brown's last day working for Donzi was October 31st, 1967 and hull #452 was delivered from the Donzi factory as an OB on November 16th, 1967, Allan Brown had to know that #452 hull was getting converted.

Don't you think?

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 10:23 AM
I think Matty that any of the early OB 16's would have been pulled as I/O's thus the floor vent. The factory would have pulled a hull and then starting cutting for the wacker. The purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB1 was a center steer boat according to "lou" which would have been consistent with the Langer 19 Donzi. I am kinda honing in on the fact that Brownie had to be there with Don when 1967 #452 was built. Also, Brownie says with 100% certainty in his email that he knows the 1965 16 OB1. I have a couple of other bread crumbs that I am tracking down on the 1965 now that it looks like my yearly goal to boat until Xmas is in the chitter.


Don is long gone from Donzi by 67 he is at Magnum concentrating on racing and the larger vee hulls the boats are callled Magnum Donzi so teleflex can cash in on Don's racing success by late 67 early 68 Teleflex is out and the company is now owned by The Chisholms and racing Donzis are now all but history

They cut the holes at the last stages of rigging so the dash cut out and vents are cut as the boat is rigged

this is why there is not the standard arched dash plate in the brochure and bw pic of the OB why would they cut a dash plate into the dash for gauges that are not needed, same for the standard two clamshell vents on a 67 I/O at the time they are not there either.

unrigged hulls were just that out of the mold and untouched then sold, so if there are i/o cuts into the 65 OB it left the factory as an I/O

Donzi later changed this but much later than 67 in the 2000s when they went to paint they rigged the hull then sprayed the boat that's why you see overspray on the exhaust pipes on some of the shelbies.

Langers boat I would think would be some kind ST Tropez as it has the helm in that general area to begin with

on a LH 16 nor sure how far center the controls can be moved the wheel can be centered but i am not sure you would have enough floor to mount the seat the floor locker is there and if any bucket seat is used beside the folding capt chair that donzi used in the early years the hatch on the floor locker and the tub liner is a pain to get out don't ask me how I know that. the floor locker is not cut in that is in the mold

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 11:50 AM
Halloween always falls on October 31st. This would also make accounting sense as the day Brownie left as it was also the end of the payroll month. If Allan Brown's last day working for Donzi was October 31st, 1967 and hull #452 was delivered from the Donzi factory as an OB on November 16th, 1967, Allan Brown had to know that #452 hull was getting converted.

Don't you think?

I still do not understand how Allan Brown could not have known that the 1967 Donzi 16 OB #452 was going to be converted to OB power by the factory when it was actually delivered to Jim Breuil Jr. of Miami only 16 days after Brownie's last work day at Donzi. The Donzi factory was building two to three 16 hulls a week at this point, correct? Although Brownie had left, it wasn't like he did not continue to know what was going on over at the factory as the world was incredibly tight knit.

It would be great to wrestle this detail to the ground with him directly as perhaps stirring his memory on the 1967 #452 OB hull will then offer bread crumbs on the purported 1965 hull.

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 12:24 PM
at that time it would be hard to personally keep track of every boat under construction even if you were there full time . i would imagine Brownies hands on day to day contact was not as intense as it was prior to Teleflex Chisholm ownership . remember Brownie has taken the 7 meter molds and got Nova as a startup around this time and was still racing.

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 12:42 PM
probably 3-4 16 hulls out of the molds in various stages of completeness and 3 16 in the molds not to mention probably the same in 18s a hornet or two a sportsman or two a st tropez or two a baby 14 or two a few f 14s and a 7 meter or two .


hull 452 is started before 453 454 but these two hulls are completed before hull 452 which means they had to take their time on this unique setup. that in itself leads me to think that when they were building 20 a month they had no time to do anything but what was routine. to just pop out an ob for one of Don's friends seems a bit far fetched.


and the big thing is when the boat is invoiced that's when the boat is "really" complete and paper work is processed in the office.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 12:47 PM
I am re-posting my email exchange with respect to the purported 1965 OB. Allan Brown seems to indicate that he knows the 1965 boat in this exchange. Bryant's Marine would have been the Donzi dealer in Seattle that would have taken delivery of the 1965 boat. Brownie confirms that Bryant's in Seattle, Washington was in fact a Donzi dealer for 5 or so years but the real question is were they a dealer starting in 1964 at the birth of Donzi, or were they a dealer starting in 1967 instead. If there dealer status began in 1967 then it would have been awfully tough for Bryant's to take delivery of a 1965 hull.

You will need to read from the bottom up ..........


From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Allan Brown
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Ok thx




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 2013 4:52 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Subject:RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

That I don't know.





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:39 PM
To: Allan Brown
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Any chance you remember if Gerry Walin bought a Donzi 16 through Bryant's during those 5 or so years?




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 2013 4:32 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Subject: RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

5 or so





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Allan Brown
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject: Re: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Thank you Sir. Do you happen to remember roughly how many years Bryant's was a Donzi dealer?




From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 24 August 2013 3:55 PM
To: Greg Guimond
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject: RE: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Yes. George Babcock owned it, Bill Muncie worked there.





From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 5:59 PM
To: Fred Darwick; “Allan Brown”
Subject: Bryant's Marina/Donzi

Hello,
Do either of you happen to recall if there was place in Washington state by the name of "Bryant's Marina" (Jerry Bryant) that would have been a Donzi dealer in '65 '66 '67? Thank you kindly.




From: Greg Guimond
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:58AM
To: Fred Darwick
Cc: ALLAN BROWN
Subject: Re: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

Thank you both and here is that picture in 1974. Gerry was paralyzed in that record attempt crash and two years later sadly killed himself. Do you know by chance if Gerry was ever a dealer for Donzi in the late 60's or early 70's? And also do you know if he was actually friends with Don A? Again, thank you both should you reply.

From: "Allan Brown"
Date: Saturday, 29 June 2013 9:22 AM
To: Greg Guimond
Cc: Fred Darwick
Subject: RE: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

I know the boat. It is in Washington state. It was bought thru George Babcock/Bill Muncey from their dealership. Gerry was the record holder for Evinrude. There is a fabulous picture of Gerry completely off the water in his hydro. He crashed and was totally smashed up. I think he later killed himself. What else do you want to know?

Brownie

From: Fred Darwick
To: Greg Guimond
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:16 AM
Subject: Re:Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

Sorry, I have no clue. I am fwding to Allan 'Brownie' Brown for his response.
Fred


From: Greg Guimond
Date: Fri, 28 June 2013 10:58 AM
To: Fred Darwick
Subject: Donzi Question Relating To Gerry Walin

Hello Mr. Darwick,
If this email reaches you I am researching an early 16 that purportedly was built by Don Aronow for the late racer Gerry Walin in the 1960's. I know you have extensive experience with these 16's over many years. Does this possibly ring any bells to you? Thank you very much

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 01:01 PM
Greg from what I have gathered april 65 is when Donzi as ZZtop says goes Big Bad and nationwide Teleflex sales reps add nationwide dealers until then it was more localize to the florida area.

again an eaton I/O boat is very possible to have made it's way to the left coast and with the flaws an weaknesses that have come to light after a season or two of use it has to be converted to an OB and then wound back up at a newly added donzi dealer for service or trade in

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 02:05 PM
I have posted my exchange with "lou" below and have attempted to create the chronology in a way that is easier to read and follow. Another twist is that Lou seems to think that the purported 1965 16 OB might have been a "light layup" build from the factory. Is there any details from the 1965 hulls that would have indicated forward stress cracks?


From: Dr. Lou Benz
Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 13:01
To: 'Greg Guimond'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

Basically I bought the boat in '76 From Doc Jones when I was working at Bertram in Miami. It was Gerry Walin’s boat (named on the title) and a test mule for the Starflite engine. Gerry Walin killed himself and Doc Jones was given the boat. The boat had a new 135 Evinrude that was specially modified by Jack Leek. The boat hull was built in 1965, it was an I/O that was modified to outboard by Donzi, and was titled as an O/B in 1965. Boats were not titled in Florida prior to 1965 when I received it in '76. There was a wax mark under the center of the upper hull close to the dash area clearly legible that said “OB1” it has resin coat over it and I believe it to be original . The engine was a marvel and could push that hull to 84 mph on GPS, at that speed only the prop was in the water. The engine was destroyed while I was running it in the bay (it threw a rod and destroyed the block) and I pulled the boat out of the water and stored it in one of my rental properties until it sold to someone who was going to restore it. He got what was left of the engine and a money clip that I got with the boat when I bought it. I was asked not to disclose the new owner’s name, but he has restored the boat and it is still in his collection.

From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:32 PM
To: 'Dr. Lou Benz'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

Thanks. Do you think there is any shot at getting the German gentleman to talk about the ’65 in anyway? I recently spoke with Jim Hallum, still living in Seattle and 81 years old. He was a good friend of Gerry and worked closely with him on the Anzani racing engines and others. He was sharp as a tack. We had a nice chat and I think he was happy to talk about his old friend. It would be very historic to at least get a photo of that marking.

From: Dr. Lou Benz
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 10:06 PM
To: 'Greg Guimond'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

Sorry Greg but I have recently spoken to the person that bought the boat about your interest and he has requested anonymity and I must respect that.
Lou


From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 7:33 AM
To: 'Dr. Lou Benz'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

I totally agree Dr Benz. I really was only hoping to get a photo of the markings under the deck. There would be no need to disclose any names or even pictures of the boat. The marking ID is a piece of history and could be shared with the community with no impact to the owner’s identity. Here is one that was retrieved from a 1966. Very cool.

From: Dr. Lou Benz
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:27 AM
To: 'Greg Guimond'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

I have asked and he declined. The original listing on my boat had a picture with the grease pencil markings under the deck, perhaps someone saved them. I no longer have those pictures as my hard drive failed and I disposed of that computer.
Lou


From: Dr. Lou Benz
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:44 PM
To: 'Greg Guimond'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

I did find some pictures of the boat on the day it was taken by the shipping company, the rest I could not recover from the failed hard drive. Note the repair to the freeboard, it kept cracking because the hull was made very thin, I had it painted many times. Not much help but something.

From: Greg Guimond
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:52 PM
To: 'Dr. Lou Benz'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

That is unique. When you bought the boat from Jack Leek in Miami did the Walin ’65 have a custom Center steering wheel dash location and Center bucket seat?

From: Dr. Lou Benz
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:57 PM
To: 'Greg Guimond'
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 Question

Center seat but not a bucket it was a very uncomfortable and small seat. That was the first thing to go.

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 02:32 PM
Greg

yes the early 64 and 65 boats were a lighter layup there were boats that had issues with the rough use and some when repowered with more HP had bottom issues.

Morgan's Cloud
11-30-2013, 03:47 PM
Just a little worthless input from an interested reader here :D

In 1973/74 I was working for the local Evinrude dealer . The manager was a real racer and when the catamaran hull technology became available he bought/imported a hull and helped create a new class . Prior to that they were all small outboard deep v's.

Evinrude supplied him with a Super Strangler for the promotional aspect and the boat was set up as well as could be. Actually it very much resembled the Magnum Missile but was of wood construction.

If memory serves me right that boat could top maybe only 85 mpx , max .

I find it incredible that the same engine on a C16 could do 85 . The boat would have to have been literally built out of tissue paper.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 05:09 PM
I think that race motors were reeling back then. Here is a frame of reference about Charles Strang and Jack Leek, the 1-2 punch of OMC racing Super Strangler's and Stinger GP's.


I'm right in the midst of reading "The Legend of Mercury" by Jeffrey Rodengen. Charlie Strang was the master-mind behind the Mark75H and Jack Leek was the mechanic who helped bring the Outboard Speed Record back to the USA for Mercury in 1958. Those two jump ship and become the brains behind the OMC Stranglers and Stingers that win the Havasu Outboard World Championship in 1969. What a TSN turning Point!

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 05:45 PM
And some more late 1960's and 1970's perspective on the OMC race motors claimed to be used on the purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB


As you probably know, it's good to start from the beginning. OMC's re-entry into outboard racing was the GT-10S (Evinrude X-115 and Johnson GT-115) in 1967. These engines were run until late 1968-early 1969 when factory race versions of the 115 were released, mostly to "factory" drivers. These engines were the Evinrude Starflite SS and Johnson Stinger. They used the 99.6ci block with two 2-barrel carbs, a battery CD ignition, and a race midsection with special air-cooled exhaust tuner, race gearcase, and heavy cast-iron stern brackets. These were run for about a year or so until 1971 when the Strangler/Stinger engines "replaced" them (they were run alongside them and were not much different). The really significant change to OMCs race program was the Super Strangler/Stinger GP in 1972; this engine is the one described in the brochure above, with 8-barrel floatless carb, magneto CD ignition (which then appeared a year later on the stock 85/115/135 engines), race centersection with air-cooled and tuned exhaust, up-down as well as in-out hydraulic adjustment, choice of gearcases, etc. The horsepower claims for these engines are almost as bad as those for the T-II-X and the OMC V8. Reports from back in the day put the SS/Stinger in the 125-130 range, and the Super Strangler/GP in the 150-165 range.

Now it must be remembered that just like over at Mercury, the factory focus on racing at OMC (and beating Mercury at all costs) blurred the lines somewhat in development timelines of race outboards--so it's not accurate to say "this one was a 1973 engine" or whatever. They were working on so many things at the same time--for example, in 1973--although the Super Strangler/Stinger GP was the "regular" race engine, OMC development was also simultaneously working on/releasing the Rotary and the looper 122-ci V6. By 1974 the Rotary was still being worked on, the Super Strangler/GP was still being built and raced, and the loop V6 program was now also supplemented by initial development of the 149-ci cross-charged CCC/SR engines, which debuted in 1975. Man were those the days. I can only hope we see something like that again.

John

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 05:58 PM
some more general info on the baby

as I stated earlier most were white with blue stripes red was the next most popular color was white with red stripes but I have seen yellow stripes as well but not very common.

In reviewing all my info I found a 16 brochure with the baby and the skisporter on the specs page it says for the baby either blue or red stripes are available. Makes sense to keep the choices and cost down on their econo model.

here is the brochure in this pdf it is also the only time I have seen the printed reference to the jet option on the 16

www.lgdonziclassic.com/pdfs/1619brochure.pdf

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 06:19 PM
Just a little worthless input from an interested reader here :D

In 1973/74 I was working for the local Evinrude dealer. The manager was a real racer and Evinrude supplied him with a Super Strangler and the boat was set up as well as could be. Actually it very much resembled the Magnum Missile but was of wood construction. If memory serves me right that boat could top maybe only 85 mph, max.

I find it incredible that the same engine on a C16 could do 85 . The boat would have to have been literally built out of tissue paper.

I have been perplexed as well thinking about the 85mph claim with a Super Strangler hanging off the back of the purported 1965 Donzi 16 OB. That said, and given I have the worthless input crown firmly in hand, I have some observations on the 85mph matter.

- First, the motor was probably a fully modified Super Strangler as Jack Leek was the #1 man for OMC Racing. If a factory Super Strangler made say 165hp, what could a custom stacker open exhaust add to the output?

- Second, you really need to see the Lower Unit on a Super Strangler and the case profile specifically. We all know that drag slows boats down and these race cases with there small footprint and hydrodynamic qualities along with a two blade prop could add to top end.

- Third, the best set-up guys in the industry can easily add 5-10mph to any given hull. I used to think it was all BS but time and time again set-up black magic seems to yield results. Gerry Walin was a factory OMC race guy, Jack Leek was the top wrench for OMC. They would have had the best shot at setting up a fat arse Donzi 16 to run well.

- Fourth, the Super Stranglers turned 7,000+ RPM routinely as a data point

Just some thoughts. If the 1965 hull was also a light layup because all the 1964 and 1965 hulls were lighter overall than later models perhaps another 200-300 lbs was missing overall?

jl1962
11-30-2013, 07:39 PM
Great thread, guys!

Matty and Greg get the November Award for Excellent Content.
Honorable mention to Woobs.

Keep it up, looooong winter.
:crossfing:


Otherwise we'll have to resurrect that endless song lyrics thread.......:hangum:

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 07:53 PM
Greg, yes the early '64 and '65 boats were a lighter layup

Matty, your data above points to "lou's" boat being a 1965 with the lighter layup problems

mattyboy
11-30-2013, 08:04 PM
yes stated gross weight in 66 literature is 1500 lbs in the 71 literature gross weight is 2150lbs for a skisporter

the weight on a production OB baby 16 is 1050 lbs

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 09:17 PM
At that point I was running total production numbers. There were approx 170 OB Baby 16's built between '70 and '78

Plus one verified 1967 #452 and one purported 1965 :biggrin: I wonder how many of the 170 OB Baby 16's are still floating? Would have to be 100 I would think.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:06 PM
Greg, you may want to search the 135 hp starflite the only reference i see is to the live and let die boat 1973. Hull #452 was an all red hull with white deck red stripe. It was started in july of '67 and finished in aug of '67 invoiced in nov of '67. It is also mark EXPER I would imagine for experimental - it is the first recorded OB 16.


Greg, I believe this picture to be the boat we are talking about. In 1967, hull #452 would be a lh helm and you have posted pics of it in a b&w press photo. It has the "67" wheel

1967 #452 OB 16 with a lot of build schedule details from Matty and before it got loaded on the trailer in November, 1967 for delivery to Jim Breuil Jr (RIP) and his happy 15 year old youngest son Tim in Miami :yes:


Breuil, James F., Jr., 77, longtime North Miami resident, died April 1, 2002. Jim came to Miami in 1959 to work side by side with his father James, Sr., to build Breuil Boat Company. Jim was a pioneer in offshore powerboat racing through the 60's and 70's. He was active in the boating industry, and at one time was president of Magnum Marine. He served in the Army Air Corp. in World War II, flying missions with the 461st bomb group, 15th Air Force. Jim is survived by his three children, Toby, Trey, and Tim. He was preceded in death by his beloved wife of 50 years, Nanette.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:13 PM
Ok did a little more forensics work and took a closer look at "lou's" email and he says the 1965 16 Baby actually had an Evinrude Starflite 90 when Gerry Walin owned it in 1965, not a 135. Lou says he changed motors over to a 135 when he took ownership of the 16 Baby in 1976. Here is a picture of a 1965 Evinrude Starflite 90-S so that narrows it down some more. Now to find the race version of that motor.

If 'lou" bought the 1965 OB from Doc Jones in 1976 and it still had the Evinrude Starflite 90 hanging on it, that would have been year accurate. It would have been a 1965 hull with a 1965 Starflite 90 motor on it with Jack Leek 'stacker" straight header exhaust. Hmmm

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:23 PM
And this would have been the 1965 Evinrude motor that Gerry Walin hung on the back of the 1965 Donzi ...........

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 10:28 PM
And meanwhile back in Seattle around the same time, George Babcock and team were trying to figure out how to bring Donzi performance boats to the great Northwest. They were already a big Evinrude dealer as shown.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 11:21 PM
In oct of '68 they built an outboard 18 hull #261 for an employee at Donzi. Then hull #299 in march of '69 goes to OMC unrigged and unpowered. Then hull #390 in march of '71 goes to omc also unrigged and unpowered. So maybe OMC did the modification and rigging for the OB and Donzi had nothing to do with it. would be nice to see a color pic of the 18 OB to see what color it was but to me it looks like the BW pic of the 18 ob the colors could match hull #390


i'm reasonably certain at least one of the 18ob's was yellow/white. There is a color pic of the yellow and white 18 OB out there

So it is interesting to note that the "special build" Donzi 18 OB hulls actually numbered three and that they were built far earlier than expected in 1968, 1969, and 1971. One of the 18 OB's is pictured below.
Where is the color picture of the yellow and white one I wonder.

Edit: To clarify, my statement above is wrong as there is only (1) documented 18 Classic OB built with a factory splash well. Evidently it is #261 built in 1968.

Greg Guimond
11-30-2013, 11:36 PM
If my memory is still good, (after all I am now in my sixth decade of life), Harbormaster purchased the factory 22 Classic OB boat and made it into an I/O. Ken

That is correct Ken, he did convert it to I/O. It is/was a 1982 Classic 22 OB and I believe the only 22 OB that the factory ever produced. Picture of it below.

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 08:01 AM
Here is are more 16 OB weights from electronic scales .......


We were able to put the hull and the deck on an electronic 2000lb scale. The hull weighed in at 698lbs. Then we did the reconfigured deck and it came in at 409lbs, more then I would have thought.
Total weight unrigged and without gas tank is 1107lbs.


Maybe this is of some use, my 16 OB deck weight was 343lbs

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 09:29 AM
Greg

if you watch the video of the record being broke that motor was not really a user friendly weekender motor smaller flywheel no shift no electric start and fuel mixture was key in making it's power so I would think the stacker was more of a stocker with the added exhaust stacks.

I ran the numbers not knowing gear ratio @ 7000 rpm on 1 to 1 gear turning a 14 ish pitch prop at 10 % slip 84 is possible.

I am having a hard time dealing with that number of 84 on lou's boat knowing how hard and how much power we have seen put into a 16 to make it get into the 70's let alone the 80's. I know Rootsy was knocking on that door with a strong 400 ish hp SS alpha and then the 600 hp blown 16

are you saying the stacker is capable of that kind of power???

olredalert
12-01-2013, 09:36 AM
----The two OB 16s I ordered in the spring of 72 were all white. One baby blue trim and one yellow. I have always thought that the production 16 OBs were white because that got them closer to the price point that the Chisholms wanted to hit. At least thats what John told me. They were hard to sell on Cape Cod. I had them most of the summer before a marina in Falmouth managed to move them. They sold one outright and then bought the second from me. I dont remember making much on those two. I think both were set up with Johnsons as the marina was a Johnson dealer.......Bill S

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 09:42 AM
Matty, this is still conjecture BUT my feeling is that if the purported 1965 16 OB exists Gerry Walin would have rigged it with a 1965/1966 Evinrude Starflite 90 with a Jack Leek custom exhaust. Then as Walin continued his ownership of the hull from 1965 forward he would have been very close to the development of the Evinrude Super Strangler race motors. That motor is known by industry experts to produce at least 165hp and spin 7,000+ RPM easily. If the motor had a super trick exhaust could that have added 10% or 16.5hp? Probably and that would have raised the total to 177hp give or take or above.

Could a 177hp race motor spinning 7,000 rpm make that hull go 84mph with an expert driver (Gerry Walin) and expert set-up by Doc Jones and Jack Leek, yes I believe that is possible if the 1965 hull was also a light layup, center steer.

Could that same motor do 84mph with Dr. Lou Benz at the helm. I'm not seeing that as possible as a pro driver is key to speed.

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 09:57 AM
Here is a stock 16 OB with speeds from a former member of the forum as a point of comparision ............69.5mph on GPS


Greg, thanks again for all your advice tweaking what became a little water-rocketship over the years. We reached on the Donzi with a 4-blade prop (67.5), nor the ultimate 69.5 achieved with the fastest, wildest 3-blade I tried. Good stuff this boating fun. Best regards, Andy.

[ QUOTE=$originalposter]{$pagetext}[/QUOTE]

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 10:02 AM
Greg

take the 1500 lb lighter layup weight or even take the 1050 Baby weight and an OB making 177hp on a rounded keel short inner strake 16 skisporter bottom and 60 mph would be a stretch. That motor might take a hull to 80 but not a classic hull.

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 10:10 AM
Greg

take the 1500 lb lighter layup weight or even take the 1050 Baby weight and an OB making 177hp on a rounded keel short inner strake 16 skisporter bottom and 60 mph would be a stretch. That motor might take a hull to 80 but not a classic hull.

I think you are probably under estimating the guys doing the set-up and the driver. Also, 177hp is my estimate. The Super Strangler/Stinger GP motors were kicking Mercury's arse for a short period of time, perhaps 4-5 years. No one knows what a full blown race motor would have truly produced but I would not doubt higher than 177hp. Someone else would know the facts on that. The one other thing that is of critical importance is the profile of that motors lower unit. Way less drag than today's Sportmaster profile.

ps; 60 mph with that Super Strangler motor would be a walk in the park and a one handed steering joy ride on a box stock Classic 16. :)

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 10:23 AM
So it is interesting to note that the "special build" Donzi 18 OB hulls actually numbered three and that they were built far earlier than expected in 1968, 1969, and 1971. One of the 18 OB's is pictured below.
Where is the color picture of the yellow and white one I wonder.



that would be the white and yellow one you can see that the deck is white the other omc unrigged boat was all(bottom sides and deck) barbados blue with a white deck stripe


Also there is only one recorded OB factory 18 not 3 the two omc boats are not noted or marked as OB in anyway shape or form one is noted in the section for power and engine and drive serial numbers "NONE" and the other is BLANK. this means that donzi did not take any action in making the boats OB the other possiblity for the first OMC Boat the blue one was to get an idea how to rig an OMC I/O in an 18 , an 18 between the first and second boats purchased by OMC was rigged at donzi with a 235 OMC I/O setup.

so let's stay focused on Lou's boat and story and not muddy the waters dragging other models into the discussion on the 16

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 10:27 AM
Greg, take the 1500 lb lighter layup weight or even take the 1050 Baby weight and an OB making 177hp on a rounded keel short inner strake 16 ski sporter bottom and 60 mph would be a stretch. That motor might take a hull to 80 but not a classic hull.

As another data point here is a video of a former forum member doing clocking 74mph with a box stock 16 OB Baby ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKksEHMDag

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 11:17 AM
Greg

you have to stay on point we are not talking Baby 16 OB production boats with modern power and trim the bottom is different we are talking about pushing a ski sporter hull to 84 mph with a 1965 OB motor and technology of the time. looks like their are no tabs and with the glass work in the well it would weigh more than an I/O of the same time. Brownies words on the 16 at 53 mph it gunwale walks so this boat if it is capable of the stated speed should show some signs of a "setup" tabs jack plate bottom work anything??

I have looked again at center steering the holes in the dash don't line up for center steer and you need to do something to the floor to mount the centered seat . again the driver seat mounting bracket and the floor from lou's pics look pretty stock. I would imagine with the rh OBs of the time a LH boat was a bit of an issue and moving the driver to the right might help. even in 67 a person involved with hull 452 says the OB of the time were not enough the boat was too heavy.

never mind now removing weight from the stern which will lead to more wetted running surface scrubbing speed. where is the tank on lou's boat??
hull 452 had the tank towards the back something planned for the OB prototype.

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 01:01 PM
Matty, Is the spirit of this a fun exchange of information about old 16's ?

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 01:04 PM
----The two OB 16s I ordered in the spring of 72 were all white. One baby blue trim and one yellow. I have always thought that the production 16 OBs were white because that got them closer to the price point that the Chisholms wanted to hit. At least thats what John told me. They were hard to sell on Cape Cod. I had them most of the summer before a marina in Falmouth managed to move them. They sold one outright and then bought the second from me. I dont remember making much on those two. I think both were set up with Johnsons as the marina was a Johnson dealer.......Bill S


Bill

yes the only two options listed for trim are red and blue limiting options would keep price down and also costs like cost to stock other parts like different color interiors

what was your dealership name not many yellow ones made. i guess they would not turn a way an order, we have a yellow trim one in our club all the rest i have seen in person were blue and some pics of red trim ones.

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 02:01 PM
Matty, Is the spirit of this a fun exchange of information about old 16's ?

should always be fun but it doesn't mean it can't be informative too, just asking to compare apples to apples


so this is the starflite iv motor this motor set the record in 1966 and had fwd only no electric start and a smaller flywheel making it hard to pull start and from the looks of it no trim

the boat it was put on was designed to make the motor part of the boat to decrease aerodynamic drag. Gerry Wallin was choosen because of two reasons one he had been to 90 mph in a boat and two cause he could fit in the capsule I guess he was on the smaller size.

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 02:15 PM
here is a list of the record holders

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 03:57 PM
Ok then, I will take another shot at walking you through my logic with my answers below in red as I know a bit about weedeaters ..............



Greg

you have to stay on point we are not talking Baby 16 OB production boats with modern power and trim the bottom is different

I am talking about precisely what you are, a 1965 16 OB. That said, a bone stock 16 OB Baby can/has gone 74mph with a stock 225.

we are talking about pushing a ski sporter hull to 84 mph with a 1965 OB motor and technology of the time.

The motor that pushed the purported Gerry Walin 1965 OB 16 would not have been a 1965. As I said, Gerry may have started with a 1965, but then as he continued to own the hull he would have upgraded to a Evinrude Super Strangler race motor. The Super Strangler would have been available to him in 1972. There is no way he would have kept outdated power on the back of the boat, he was a factory OMC race driver.

looks like their are no tabs

Trim tabs have not shown to be much of an advantage on a 16 OB IMO. I ran my 16 OB for years with an Evinrude 235 V6 on the back and always broke 60 without tabs.

and with the glass work in the well it would weigh more than an I/O of the same time.

I'm also not so sure on this, how much does an I/O motor hatch weigh when compared to a wacker splash well. I suspect the same.

Brownies words on the 16 at 53 mph it gunwale walks

I missed the point of Allan Brown. Is he saying that a 1971 16 OB Baby chine walks at 53?


so this boat if it is capable of the stated speed should show some signs of a "setup" tabs jack plate bottom work anything??

The purported 1965 16 OB would not have needed tabs, a modern jack plate or bottom work. It would have however received set-up tweeks from the best in the industry when the Super Strangler OB motor was installed in 1972.

I have looked again at center steering the holes in the dash don't line up for center steer and you need to do something to the floor to mount the centered seat . again the driver seat mounting bracket and the floor from lou's pics look pretty stock.

I need to look more closely at the photos that "lou" supplied us for the 1965 on this point.

I would imagine with the rh OBs of the time a LH boat was a bit of an issue and moving the driver to the right might help. even in 67 a person involved with hull 452 says the OB of the time were not enough the boat was too heavy.

The comment that Tim Breuil made about his 1967 16 OB Christmas gift would have been accurate when considering the OB power he had access to at that time, but not for Gerry Walin's access to 1972 OB race power.

never mind now removing weight from the stern which will lead to more wetted running surface scrubbing speed.

Also not really true, the ideal attack angle has been shown to be 5-7 degrees for modern OB motors. The 1972-73-74-75 Super Stranglers had enough trim for that attack angle to be achieved.

where is the tank on lou's boat?? hull 452 had the tank towards the back something planned for the OB prototype.

I have no idea where the gas tank was on "lou's" 1965 hull

should always be fun but it doesn't mean it can't be informative too, just asking to compare apples to apples

I agree 100%, the 1965 16 OB that "lou" owned would be an apples to apples comparison to the 1967 16 OB #452 that you have 100% verified.

so this is the starflite iv motor this motor set the record in 1966 and had fwd only no electric start and a smaller flywheel making it hard to pull start and from the looks of it no trim

The picture above that you have posted was the 1966 motor that powered Gerry Walin and Hugh Entrops Starflight IV boat (physically built by Wilbur McDonald) to the world record in Lake Havasu but has zero resemblance to the Super Strangler I am talking about except perhaps for the open header exhaust that was added by Jack Leek to the 1972 Super Strangler.

the boat it was put on was designed to make the motor part of the boat to decrease aerodynamic drag.

Correct, that was Hugh Entrops design principle I believe behind Starflight IV and that 1966 motor.

Gerry Wallin was choosen because of two reasons one he had been to 90 mph in a boat and two cause he could fit in the capsule I guess he was on the smaller size.

Gerry Walin was chosen because he had balls of steel, was one of the best high speed drivers of the day, routinely fiddled with all kinds of boats himself for fun, and yes, he was a fly weight and could fit in the capsule. Consider that his physical stature and light arse would have also helped the 1965 OB 16 achieve 84mph. Consider again that modern 16 OB Baby's have gone 74 with stock power. 10mph is a crap load more speed, you and I both know that, but my educated opinion is that it is/was possible. That fugher could drive a boat.

Other Cliff Clavin comments -

1. Gerry Walin's catastrophic crash occurred in late 1975 as he attempted to set a new World Record. He killed himself in 1976 after being parylized. "lou" claims to have bought his boat in late 1976 from Jack Leek while "lou" worked at Bertram.

2. My educated Super Strangler hp number is probably low if the full force of OMC racing and Charlie Strang was behind the motor. These motors came with 8 carbs.

3. The Super Strangler weight would need to be verified but I would suspect 300lbs.

4. Driver talent is a major, major issue. My brother (driver on Catisfaction) gets into my boats and immediately gets 4-5mph better than ol'Greg can get.

olredalert
12-01-2013, 05:26 PM
----You know, Matty,,,For the life of me I cant remember what I called my little pop-stand operation. I never really had a location. I just rented some space at Crosbys Boat Yard in Osterville Mass. Maybe another marguerita will shake up my memory.........Bill S

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 06:10 PM
Jim, I'm not saying that the boat existed. I'm just saying that "lou" says it did and that's what he told me. Could he be full of chit, sure, but I'm having fun looking for it. If I find it, then great. If not, also great. Half the fun is in the hunt. I will say that for him to describe a Super Strangler on the back of the boat he bought from Doc Jones in 1976 would be pretty darn far fetched.

Your calculations are pretty good, except that the Super Strangler could have been making 200hp, and could have been spinning 8,000 RPM. I'll check into both. How are you factoring in the lower unit on a Super Strangler/Stinger GP? I'm saying as opposed to current lower units.

Gerry was based in Seattle, and the boat would have been delivered through Bryant's Marina, a Donzi dealer so not a Miami thing.

If the chine walk of a 16 OB Baby starts at 57-58 and I drove mine at 60, another one was driven at 68, and another one at 74mph verified on youtube. How?


All this is good fun btw ...........

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 06:12 PM
Greg
My point with brownies comment was Lou's boat is not an OB baby. It is an OB skisporter. So we can keep this clear the tops and bottoms are different. Brownies comment was for Lou's boat and hull 452 not a 71 baby

The difference is seen on a skisporter vs an 18c. Same power the 18 is quicker the longer inner strakes and more stable the longer strakes

The bottom thing also effects the minx

re- checking Bryant's if they were donzi dealers for 5 yrs they didn't sell many boats don't see their name too much in the records

almost finished with the article on hull 452

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 06:28 PM
Matty, if it left that factory in 1965 as "OB 1" written under the deck with a factory cut transom it's an OB. If the strakes changed on the 1967 #452 hull, great it is also an OB. If they changed again in 1971, great they are OB 16 Baby's. My point is it is plausible for the 1965 OB to get 84mph with a Super Strangler motor on the back. Current 16 OB's have gone 74 with a 225. All the early OB's were experimental.

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 06:48 PM
Greg, re- checking Bryant's if they were donzi dealers for 5 yrs they didn't sell many boats don't see their name too much in the records

Brownie says that Bryant's Marine in Seattle was a Donzi dealer. How many boats did the California dealer sell as a comparison?

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 06:55 PM
Matty, if it left that factory in 1965 as "OB 1" written under the deck with a factory cut transom it's an OB. If the strakes changed on the 1967 #452 hull, great it is also an OB. If they changed again in 1971, great they are OB 16 Baby's. My point is it is plausible for the 1965 OB to get 84mph with a Super Strangler motor on the back. Current 16 OB's have gone 74 with a 225. All the early OB's were experimental.


so the bottom design as no factor in this????? sorry this thread just jumped the shark :rolleyes:

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 07:00 PM
How would the bottom matter? Because it effects speed? :confused:

I'm truly not following you on the jump the shark thingy

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 07:23 PM
Here again is "lou's" exact statement .................

"Basically it was an inboard that was converted to outboard, Brownie said that he did not build outboards when he worked at Donzi but the pictures and documentation prove otherwise as that boat had only one previous owner Gerry Walin and was titled to him in '65 as an outboard"

I hope I'm not being made fun of, I am very sensitive :(

mattyboy
12-01-2013, 07:35 PM
Greg

yes the pre 1970 ish skisporter hull cause of the lack of longer innner lifting strakes had handling issues at speeds above 50 and more wetted surface scrubbing speed . that is my issue with lou's statement . It would be much harder to get a skisporter hull to 84 then a baby 16 hull

so when you post a video of a baby 16 ob made from 70-78 with a different bottom and newer power to validate the 84 on the skisporter hull you might as well post a video of an stv or challenger it is not the same hull. similar yes but not the same .

Greg Guimond
12-01-2013, 08:27 PM
Matty, what does jump the shark mean?

Ghost
12-01-2013, 08:32 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:02 AM
Greg, yes the pre 1970 ish skisporter hull cause of the lack of longer innner lifting strakes had handling issues at speeds above 50 and more wetted surface scrubbing speed . that is my issue with lou's statement . It would be much harder to get a skisporter hull to 84 then a baby 16 hull. so when you post a video of a baby 16 ob made from 70-78 with a different bottom and newer power to validate the 84 on the skisporter hull you might as well post a video of an stv or challenger it is not the same hull. similar yes but not the same .

First cup of coffee......

Ok so I think what your saying Matty is that the early 16 Ski Sporter I/O (1964-1968) had a different hull bottom design than a production 16 OB Baby of 1970 - 1978. I agree as you guys are the authority on I/O's and I truly appreciate and respect that knowledge. Your saying that a factory 1964-1968 16 Ski Sporter could not get to more than 57mph without substantial chine walk and that the 64-68 hull bottom produced more wetted surface which also would have limited top speed. These items are fact and I'll agree with you.

Do you have any idea how that same 1965 hull bottom would have reacted when set-up by the best people in the world with a proven race caliber OB motor? No you don't. Now add to that a lower unit that's profile was far different than any of the I/O cases available in 1964-1968. How do you factor that in? Could it have produced different lift, speed, and handling characterstics? Most likely. To say that me comparing a 1965 I/O 16 hull bottom to a 1975 O/B 16 hull bottom is like comparing the 1965 to an STV or pad bottom Challenger 21 is absurd, stay on point as you told me to.

Production 16 OB Baby hull bottoms are also 24 degree, round keel bottoms like the hull bottom of a 1964-1968 Ski Sporter I/O so I would claim that the similarities are probably, say 75%. Do you agree? The 25% difference comes from the lack of longer inner lifting strakes and a few other tweeks, which you can comment on. I agree with you. That 25% would make it harder to go 84mph, but I don't agree with "much" harder when your factory 16 OB Baby's are going 74mph.

The basic question for you and "lou" is does the 25% difference in hulls STOP the 1965 I/O hull bottom from going 10mph faster than the O/B 1975. Do you REALLY think that is not well within possible? REALLY?

- Best Technical Riggers for the time
- 1972-1975 Super Strangler OMC V-4 race motor that dominated Mercury (I owe Buizilla the actual weight but it was light)
- Unique Lower Unit profile maybe more akin to a Speedmaster
- Slightly lighter layup hull (you would know by how many lbs)

REALLY?

woobs
12-03-2013, 08:34 AM
This certainly is an interesting discussion. and I don't want to stray off topic but, I don't believe there is any way to actually prove the 84mph claim using the 1965 hull and race motor without recreating the equipment and conditions.

I have no doubt that they thought they were at 84 mph on THE day but, with no GPS or digital timing system I would postulate that speed measuring systems of the day were just not that accurate. In fact if radar was used it could actually be quite misleading.

This in no way detracts from the feat as it was most likely recorded in accordance with approved practices of the day and although the results are not "absolute" it was certainly as recorded on that day in history. It is how history says it is.

This all leads to the premise of this discussion being... Is it realy possible? No matter which logic you apply , any refrence to prior measurements must be considered with the potential errors. To solve this question the only way is to actually build one and go prove it with current timing/measuring equipment. After all, "repeatability" is a major pillar of analysis.

Comparisons with modified/similar or modern hulls are irrelivent due to the apples and oranges law... Even 10% difference (+/- 5%) is an 8.5 mph window.

If anyone had pushed a stock '65 hull with an o/b to 84 mph with modern power under accurate scrutiny it would only prove the hull can get there but, in no way proves the prior 84 mph claim. Again, because of the apples/oranges in the hydrodynamics and efficiencies of the old race motor.

Although justification and conjecture might make this a close bet; I believe this is a tall order to prove... and next to impossible to prove on paper.

So, who wants to build one and try? (Mythbusters) :)

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 09:17 AM
woobs, the 84mph claim was made using today's GPS technolgy to measure. The other point you missed is that the hydrodynamics of the Super Strangler race motor's case were likely better than today's modern lower units.

A hulls strake placement etc only plays a substantive role on a weedeater when it is in the water. Also, just as a sidebar in small hulls weight plays a very big role when carrying the bow on a V. I believe that the 64-68 Ski Sporter's were a lighter layup, Matty can confirm that. Also, the owner said he had a very light layup on the hull sides toward the bow which the pictures confirm.

I love a good exchange of information but so far I'm still comfortable with the claim of 84mph on GPS.


Signed - Prop Rider
:)

woobs
12-03-2013, 11:24 AM
Forgive my ignorance as I am no expert by any means.... but, I'm a pretty good analyst.
Please see comments in red.


woobs, the 84mph claim was made using today's GPS technolgy to measure. When was this record made? (I was under the impression it was in the early 70's) GPS came in to being in 1995 with improvements in 2000.

The other point you missed is that the hydrodynamics of the Super Strangler race motor's case were likely better than today's modern lower units. Better or not, it is still apples/oranges versus a modern powerplant. Maybe better hydrodynamics in the lower end required less power (as there was less there) but the mechanical efficiencies of the drive are different also. How the unit functions both as a component and in concert with the hull is unique.

A hulls strake placement etc only plays a substantive role on a weedeater when it is in the water. The short inner strake of the '65 design (or lack of a strake where needed) is known to allow chine walk well below the 84mph mark. A great driver may be able to balance this somewhat. If I understand your theory, once past this transition to a much less wetted surface (without the lifting help of strakes... which requires more power to do) and with no pad, the driver balanced on the round hull bottom only? This would be like standing on a big ball floating on top of the water. Inertia may stabilize in one direstion but, there's very little control on another axis.

Also, just as a sidebar in small hulls weight plays a very big role when carrying the bow on a V. I believe that the 64-68 Ski Sporter's were a lighter layup, Agreed 100%. Matty can confirm that. Also, the owner said he had a very light layup on the hull sides toward the bow which the pictures confirm. What about the hook in the hull that seems to be present in all the early boats ? Do you think there are any negative effects there? Should we not consider All the characteristics of the hull?

I love a good exchange of information but so far I'm still comfortable with the claim of 84mph on GPS. If in fact this was done recently and recorded with modern technology, why the debate?


Signed - Prop Rider
:)

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 12:46 PM
Forgive my ignorance as I am no expert by any means.... but, I'm a pretty good analyst.
Please see comments in red.



No worries at all, it's all good.

I guess the debate is based on what the old owner said he clocked with the boat. He specifically said that it was a Garmin GPS that read 84. The guy evidently has had an interesting array of boats including a Magnum Missile on up to some bigger stuff. I was not there, so I am just the messenger in this regard and no one will ever be able to prove it with 100% certainty, I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I would point out is that a modern 16 OB Baby has run 74 on GPS. It did not have trim tabs either. As Matty has pointed out, that hull bottom is different but I think the round keel portion at the transom is the same. Also, steering play would play a big role in handling and control. Look at the wing plates on the Super Strangler, pretty purpose built.

I'm not taking the other side just to be fart about it btw, I just think it is certainly possible. I have seen great set-up make a slow boat go faster, and have witnessed my kid brother get better speed out of the same hull right after me. Which btw is more annoying as I get older lol.

bertsboat
12-03-2013, 02:20 PM
I emailed a friend that lived on the next block to Tin Breuil and the next block to myself. He also had boats. We all did. We lived in North Miami's Keystone Point and elmode every house was on the water and less than a mile from Haulover inlet.
I said "Hi Scott, Hope all is well. Do you remember the red donzi that Mr Breuil bought for Tim one Christmas Do you have any pictures?"
Scott replied,
" Hey man,
Wait a minute… when you say Christmas perhaps you mean 196? Were cameras even invented yet? I wouldn’t have any pictures but I do remember the boat. It was some experimental thing his dad came up with I think, probably no other outboard Donzi’s ever. I also remember Mora’s red Donzi. Sweet boat but never seemed to work. She was sweet too if I recall.

woobs
12-03-2013, 02:22 PM
I'm not really taking sides. Personally, I believe 84 is ambitious in an early hull but, not impossible...However, is it possible with that rigging? I'm not smart enough to answer that.

I do enjoy sussing through the arguments and looking at things from a different perspective. I also still think that a 16 baby is different enough as to not be directly applicable as a comparison. The changes were significant enough for the factory to upgrade the hull.

Despite all arguments, the numbers are in the reality "wheelhouse" with a +/- factor and who knows if the planets align, he caught the tide going downhill, a tailwind and waxed the hull with super duper anti-friction film... they may have been all +++ that day.

If the boat still exists, maybe the new owner will repeat the feat! If not, you either have to take the old owner at his word or recreate the event.

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 02:50 PM
Exactly, you either call the old owner a liar or you believe him. When you say "that rigging" what do you mean there?

woobs
12-03-2013, 03:46 PM
Exactly, you either call the old owner a liar or you believe him. When you say "that rigging" what do you mean there?

The hot rodded, Super Strangler race motor with set-up.

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 04:12 PM
Well "set-up" is a bit different than the "motor". The motors were Evinrude Super Strangler or Johnson Stinger GP 8 pumpers. OMC Racing ONLY had them and you could buy them as a privateer. The Super Strangler/Stinger GP line was available from late 1972 to early 1976. They had and excellent track record to the day, just ask a Merc guy who was racing against them. Remember though that they were Race only wackers, not like my Merc 2.5 280 which a consumer could buy from Mercury Racing. These things only went to the big dogs as I understand it, Gerry Walin being one of those dudes.

The only exception to the above was the custom open stacker exhaust that this Super Strangler had on it. That was good for some extra ponies but somewhere along the way the race gods stopped allowing them because they were causing ruptured ear drums.

The set-up refers to what was best on any given hull. Things like what props, what X dimension, bracket wedges, steering type, and ballast. For example I carry 20lbs of sand in my existing 16 for balance purposes. On my new one we checked the exact Center of Gravity with a sling to get a feel for what we felt would be best with the weedeater option chosen. You get a lot more set-up flexibility with an OB than you do with an I/O, but they sound like a wounded ferret underway.

Winter time and set-up. I can't wait for Summer

woobs
12-03-2013, 04:56 PM
Please see response in Red.


Well "set-up" is a bit different than the "motor". That's why I called it rigging and then seperated motor from set up when queried. My meaning being... encompassing everything that was done to the early Ski Sporter/ob hull to be in that configuration for a claimed 84 mph run.



On my new one we checked the exact Center of Gravity with a sling to get a feel for what we felt would be best with the weedeater option chosen. Yes, I have read through your ST thread several times and noted many things that will help me in my SS16 project (even though it is an I/O). Weight distribution being of great import as I build my wood deck benchseat. I am planning a 4.3 with aluminum heads and as many weight saving items as I can afford. I'll still have to balance the thing.

I can't wait for Summer. I'm with you there...

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 05:00 PM
Sorry Greg

two points i think you are way off on the lighter layup a light layup would still be north of 1400lbs in 1965

and the strakes the newer OB baby strakes end right at where the running surface would be about 2 feet from the transom not 4 feet from the transom.

so just by propping, bolting on and jacking up an OB will overcome any hull's design short-comings?? without adding any technology to the hull k-planes pads notches??

sorry I don't buy that part of lou's story as well as the part about the factory making it. 84 with mid 70s OB technology on a 1800lb 24X7 boat

BTW

here is one of the pics of 452

just finishing some details on the article

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:02 PM
As I have said, whether or not the 1965 came out of the factory with a cut transom or was it an I/O that had the conversion done at a later date is something only Gerry Walin probably knows for sure.

When I said lighter layup I was thinking a little lighter then the later Ski Sporters. That is what I thought you meant, but it would have only been 100lbs lighter, agree. When you say "84 with mid 70s OB technology on a 1800lb 24X7 boat" what does the 24x7 mean? Also, how are you factoring in the Super Stranglers lower unit profile? Do you think that would play no role on the purported 1965? Because that is pretty much impossible I would think. I have not heard you comment at all on that piece. As to the strakes on a 1971-1978 OB Baby terminating two feet from the transom versus the strakes on the 1965 terminating four feet forward of the transom that is a great observation. Is that the only difference between the two hull bottoms or are there more that you know about?

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:10 PM
Also here is the question that Alan Brown asked back in 2008. He also confirmed that the boat had been brought through Bryant's Marine in Seattle, WA in his email this year. I think that you are saying that BOTH his references were to the fact that YES the boat exists, but that the conversion to OB was done after it left the factory. His comments certainly substantiate that a 1965 hull went to Seattle. That does not seem to be in doubt at all.



Several years ago, someone found an outboard Donzi near Seattle, Wa. with 4 cylinder, stacked OMC engine. Anyone have any knowledge of that? Thanks.

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:21 PM
And then there is this direct note from Lou Benz who owned the purported 1965 "OB1" ...........


modified to outboard By Donzi, and was titled as an O/B in 1965. There was a wax mark under the center of the upper hull close to the dash area clearly legible that said “OB1” it has resin coat over it and I believe it to be original . The engine was a marvel and could push that hull to 84 mph on GPS, at that speed only the prop was in the water.

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:33 PM
So a factory 16 OB Baby with 2' of extra strength length does 74mph without trim tabs and a stock 225 fishing motor. I wonder how much the lack of 2' of strake length played. If you put the same 225 fishing motor on the 1967 #452 OB 16 that would be about the closest thing to a woobs test.

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 06:37 PM
Greg

yes slippery lower units do increase speed but and it is a BIG BUT

from my expierence with the skisporter and from what I have seen others do, the hull itself prop sensitive and with that wide rounded bottom with nothing to stop it from rolling side to side it hits a point in the speed band that it chinewalks and if the prop is not quite right it will get out of control. the e drive was good for 5-7 mph but still mid 60s was about the top trim helps the right prop helps a lot.

the pic of the evenrude looks to be a short shaft and with the weight shift to the bow with the OB i would think the motor would lack bow lift more wetted surface and move of that rounded bottom in the water??? so what was the hp output??200 300??? I am not an OB guy but how would that motor compare to today's hi-po OB offerings? say a merc 300xs with the speedmaster???

when I say 24x7 i mean a plain old classic hull 24 degree 7 foot beam no notches not pads

if Wallin and Don were friends and Don made a 16 ob for Wallin and Wallin setup that 16 to do 84 by 1974 Don would have been all over it and would have used that to win or sell whatever he could

I also think that if you do have a special super fast setup you preserve it if the motor blows you replace it you don't let it fall apart

use mighty mouse as an example the setup is so special it needs to stay that way.

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 06:47 PM
The e-drive on a Ski Sporter 16 (1964-1968) was good for 5mph -7mph faster because of the case profile?

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 07:20 PM
That's an average for all AQ powered classics .

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 07:40 PM
The e-drive on a Ski Sporter 16 (1964-1968) was good for 5mph -7mph faster because of the case profile?


That's an average for all AQ powered classics .

5-7 mph for a case is impressive. Is there any other difference on the 64-68 I/O bottom as compared to the 70-78 O/B bottom EXCEPT for the two feet longer inner strake?

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 07:47 PM
not only the case but a higher X and merc racing props so on a small block 260-300 horse 16 it moved it from 53-55 to just about 60 mph

never really had the chance to take a straight edge to a baby hull you would be best to say if the hook is there the strake is big boat sits much higher with the longer strake

this modification must have made a difference they did it to all the short straked models

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 08:08 PM
The higher X is irrelevant as the wacker could get whatever X was needed.
Props also would not matter as they had any one they needed.
Hook would not matter at those high speeds.

So the extra 2' of inner strake is really the only difference between a '65 Ski Sporter hull bottom and a '75 OB Baby hull bottom and then you have the e-case that is worth 5mph in top speed advantage.

So if the 1965 16 Ski Sporter "old"hull bottom does 60mph with an average 275hp pushing it and shorter strakes slowing it, how much does that car motor and I/O drive weigh all together roughly?

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 08:21 PM
here's the edrive

it was weak due to the smaller gears i would imagine that would be true of any slimmer lower

so are we saying Wallin rigged the boat sometime before his accident in 1974 then lou got the boat setup that way and gps'd it sometime in the mid 1990's when gps came out??

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 08:23 PM
Dr. Lou Benz aka "lou" said very specifically that he used a Garmin (he said Garmin, not just GPS) and it was a calm day on Miami Bay when he laid down 84 with the Super Strangler and the boat out of the water and riding the prop. He bought the boat in 1976 when he worked at Bertram and it had a new Super Strangler on the back of it with the trim option that pushed off the transom. You can see the bolt pattern in the pictures if you read through the thread. I have never seen that bolt pattern before.


From Garmin's site ..........

Here are some other interesting facts about the GPS satellites (also called NAVSTAR, the official U.S. Department of Defense name for GPS):

The first GPS satellite was launched in 1978.
A full constellation of 24 satellites was achieved in 1994.
Each satellite is built to last about 10 years. Replacements are constantly being built and launched into orbit.

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 08:34 PM
the simple answer is if 84 mph in a baby 16 is not hard and can be done just with setup and no hull work there must be a few mid 80s babies out there especially with todays technology

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 08:41 PM
This 16 Ski Sporter found its way to Seattle. I guess Don knew folks out there including Bill Muncey, and George Babcock, owner of Bryant's Marine a Donzi Dealer back in the '60s ..................

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 08:47 PM
here's the edrive

How much did an e drive and car motor combo weigh roughly?


Here is the note that claims the 84mph ...............

From: Dr. Lou Benz
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:02 PM
To: greg
Subject: RE: 1965 Donzi 16 - 1975 Evinrude Super Strangler 135

84 mph as indicated by a Garmin GPS on a calm day in the bay of Miami. I was racing against an Allison that was manned By Osiris Perez AKA “Chief”. Chief worked as a mechanic for River marine in Miami and bragged he had a fast boat. He got me off the start but I quickly overtook him when my boat reached optimum angle. I wanted to make sure he did not challenge me again so I let my ego dictate the amount of risk involved and foolishly reached WOT for what seemed an eternity but in fact was about a minute. I would repeat the run with him aboard an hour or so later to prove my speed. I have never again committed such a stupid act. Chief never challenged me again but instead he bragged about my boat to others. I have had faster boats since but not that small. Keep in mind this was not a very heavy hull as evidenced by the stress cracks that I had to repair multiple times on the freeboard and deck.

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 09:34 PM
about 450- 500lbs more than a 225 merc OB

while we are on weight a skisporter's cog is going to be to far fwd if you take 500 lbs out of the back

hence the tank in the back on 452 if they knew that in 67 they knew it in 65

I have yet to see the fuel fill on lou's boat but in the one pic it looks to be in the standard spot behind the front lift ring

Greg Guimond
12-03-2013, 09:42 PM
That is interesting. 500lbs is worth 5mph in that hull design. Add another 1mph for the 100lbs of lighter weight of a 64-68. Then add 5 mph for the lower unit. Just found 11mph of speed.

I don't know where the fuel fill was on the 1965 yet. Evidently the Super Strangler's knew there way around Miami waterways ..........

mattyboy
12-03-2013, 10:18 PM
Greg

how do you figure 500lbs is 5 mph???

woobs
12-03-2013, 11:54 PM
Looking at this I still have issue with the strakes (or lack therof) on the early 16 hull. Longer strakes not only help control of the reported chine walk at approximately 56mph. They also provide a surface to help lift the hull and reduce the wetted surface. While it is possible to lift the hull without the strakes I believe the power required to accomplish this is huge.

Now, an additional 2' of 1" wide strakes x2 is 48 sqin of lifting surface as seen on the 16 baby is quite significant. I believe this is so significant as to be a barrier to speeds much higher than 60mph or so for a boat without them (and limited power). I use 60 mph as an estimate as this is slightly past where the lack of control shows up and I estimate it is also where the splash line is 3.5 +/- feet or so from the transom. This is the area where all the lift must occur by motor alone.

An analogy may be the design feature of swept wings on an aircraft. With the same engine, fusalage and wingspan, a conventional wing loses its ability to generate lift at a certain speed while the swept wing variant pushes right past due to decreased drag and delayed pressure compressibility. (as was the case on the F86 Sabre and its immediate design predecessor XP 86). Basically, same plans and almost there but, without the swept wing variant the barrier was in place.

Lastly, a nose heavy boat would exacerbate the wetted hull issue making it more difficult to get the hull out of the water. Without reducing the wetted surface (and the drag) the barrier is in place. Overcoming THAT drag with horsepower would be quite costly in terms of what is availavble even at 275hp. Ballast used to correct the imbalance of the boat adds to the overall weight becoming a significant factor as well.

I'm thinking the reduced drag of the lower end and the significant output from this race engine may push the boat up to the 70's somewhere... But the more I think about it, that's generous.

So, Do we know this hull to be factory STOCK?

Okay, I've been thinking too much..........:banghead:

jl1962
12-04-2013, 06:07 AM
Greg-

Have you ever tried to track down this "Osiris Perez" guy?
He might be able to corroborate some of this.

Forgive me as I haven't read this entire thread but it sounds like:

-There was a '65 16 that was rigged as an O/B, either by Donzi or OMC
-Dr. Benz came to own the boat in the 1980s
-He claims it ran 84 mph GPS
-He doesn't own it anymore and won't reveal where the boat went

Is that about the story? What else am I missing?

Greg - you've run 16 O/Bs faster than anyone here, do you think it was possible?

Great thread - although it's approaching Moby Dick length and breadth!

mattyboy
12-04-2013, 06:21 AM
Greg

so you know hull 452 with a hotrodded johnrude 215ish hp a jack plate and a good prop best run was 68 some 6 mph slower than a baby and that is with the tank in the back .

the strake thing also effects the minx in the same way it has a "ceiling of about low to mid 60s " with sb power that pushes a 22 to the same speeds it takes a lot of technology to go beyond that. like jhall's arny minx

mattyboy
12-04-2013, 06:36 AM
the figures I gave on the strakes were off the top of my head if you actually look at it you can see the distance may be over 4 feet

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 06:40 AM
Here you go ...........



Greg-

Have you ever tried to track down this "Osiris Perez" guy? He might be able to corroborate some of this.

Forgive me as I haven't read this entire thread but it sounds like:

-There was a '65 16 that was rigged as an O/B, either by Donzi or OMC
Dr. Lou Benz says it left the Donzi factory with a splashwell in 1965 as "OB1" as was written under the dash. Matty thinks it left as an I/O but without a motor or drive and that the splashwell was added "after" delivery but someone (factory OMC racer Gerry Walin) but NOT the factory.
-Dr. Benz came to own the boat in the 1980s
Dr. Benz says that while he was working at Bertram, he bought the boat in 1976 from Jack Leek (verified OMC race boss) after Gerry Walin committed suicide
-He claims it ran 84 mph GPS
Dr. Benz claims it ran 84 on GPS. He puts that run in the middle 1990's in Miami Bay with Osiris Perez as witness
-He doesn't own it anymore and won't reveal where the boat went
He sold the 1965 hull along with what was left of the Super Strangler motor in 2010. The same person who bought the Donzi also bought his Magnum Missile. That person evidently is in Germany as the boat was shipped to Germany. The annoying German guy who won't release his contact information is evidently a collector and the boat has been restored and is currently in his extensive collection today, in Germany. Achtung Baby?

Is that about the story? What else am I missing?

Greg - you've run 16 O/Bs faster than anyone here, do you think it was possible?

Great thread - although it's approaching Moby Dick length and breadth!

jl1962
12-04-2013, 06:58 AM
Got it.

Germany eh?

Why not put Axel on the case?
Or Lars or the guy w/ the 100 MPH 22 in Stockholm.

It's a small community. Can't be that many guys with that type of collection.

Just Say N20
12-04-2013, 07:07 AM
Not saying the truth is being stretched here, but I am finding it extremely hard to believe. Everything Woobs said EXACTLY coincides with my experience with both my Ski-Sporter, my knowledge of Allison boats, and my personal 16', super-light (480 lbs) transom jacked, nose-coned, V6/200 hp powered, pad bottomed, notched transomed, 87 RADAR mph Laser back in 82/83.

With the short inner strakes and 260 hp, my Ski-Sporter ran 57.3 GPS mph. Adding another 180 hp, it has run 65.2 GPS mph. Woods is spot on saying above about 56 mph, additional speed, without hull modifications, is only achieved by adding huge hp. There is simply nothing for the hull to get up and run on.

So we all know Volvo outdrives are pretty inefficient. Take that out of the equation, install an Alpha SS, and 500 hp and you end up with Parnell's 1979 SS. He has stated a max speed of 80.2 GPS.

So let's move on to Greg's Mule. It has had lots of bottom modifications, including adding a pad, which my personal experience suggests is huge in terms of running fast. He has what has to be a more potent engine than the old V4 Strangler ever could have been. He has a raised engine height, the benefit of another 30 years of prop technology, and he hasn't quite reached 80.

And then there is the simple fact, that anyone who has ever seen an Allison run knows, those boats flat out scream. In 1980 I was living in Houston, and went to a lot of boat races. At that time, the 13' Allison, with the Stinger 3-cylinder 75 Johnrudes had the record for that class at 68 mph. Put the V4 Strangler, or a stout V6 MERC from the time on one of the 16' Allison's and it would be a believable 80 mph boat.

I just don't see a stock bottomed Donzi Ski-Sporter, with a V4 outboard, even running a racing lower, running 84 mph, no matter how much "ego driving" was done. The physics just don't add up. Even if the boat was super light weight, that hull won't do that speed with that power.

woobs
12-04-2013, 07:33 AM
the figures I gave on the strakes were off the top of my head if you actually look at it you can see the distance may be over 4 feet

I just measured mine at 55" from the transom

mattyboy
12-04-2013, 08:27 AM
I just measured mine at 55" from the transom

now that you mention it that sounds familiar

with Bill's results we had a member of the LGDCC he machined his own gears on an e drive he had a low 325-350ish hp sbf with the e drive his numbers were low to mid 60s and that boat was airborne. he didn't have trim but i think he finagled the trim pin so it was higher than the third hole.

would love to see an e-drive on Bill's setup I bet that would jump it to a mid 70s boat.

so in my estimation you would need an OB that would be pushing near 400 hp and have enough leverage to carry the entire hull

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 11:23 AM
the simple answer is if 84 mph in a Baby 16 is not hard and can be done just with setup and no hull work there must be a few mid 80mph babies out there especially with todays technology


Greg, how do you figure 500lbs is 5 mph???

I'm sure not everyone is on the internet and that there are Baby 16 OB's out across the US that are breaking 80mph with OB power. As to 500lbs adding 5mph in speed, that is the generally agreed upon ratio for a hull of this type and weight. Now this is an OB ratio but I suspect that there are many, many modern Sweet 16's that we could ask to chime in with data points. I believe todays gas weighs 6.5lbs per gallon so you could see what a Ski Sporter or Sweet 16 boat adds in speed at WOT between a full tank of gas and close to empty. I'm thinking 200lbs less fuel weight should give the I/O's 2mph better on GPS.

That is the way it would work with a wacker on the backer :rofl:

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 11:32 AM
Greg, so you know hull #452 with a hotrodded johnrude 215ish hp a jack plate and a good prop best run was 68 some 6 mph slower than a baby and that is with the tank in the back .


the figures I gave on the strakes were off the top of my head. If you actually look at it you can see the distance may be over 4 feet

Matty, what specific OB motor "model" is on the back of the 1967 #452 hull in the picture you posted. Can you/did you ask the current owner? I'm assuming that the boat is parked in someone's garage at the moment but I lost track of that specific detail.

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 11:40 AM
Not saying the truth is being stretched here, but I am finding it extremely hard to believe. I just don't see a stock bottomed Donzi Ski-Sporter, with a V4 outboard, even running a racing lower, running 84 mph, no matter how much "ego driving" was done. The physics just don't add up. Even if the boat was super light weight, that hull won't do that speed with that power.

Dr. Lou Benz and his speed comments are being closely looked at. If he fabricated 84mph or not will be known to the six that care, me being three of them (me, myself, and I) :lifeprese:

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 11:47 AM
In my estimation you would need an OB that would be pushing near 400 hp and have enough leverage to carry the entire hull


judging by the hull 452 pic's, that boat, if the pic's are recent, HAS to be extremely close to me, i'm willing to take a lookysee if thats possible...

Matty, 400hp? You are thinking like a car motor guy. I say give BUIZILLA the keys to the kingdom and send him over to do the on-site inspection of 1967 #452 with a tape measure for the strakes and a camera for the splash well and the grease marking under the deck. That would be some bitchen info to have for sure. Will the current owner allow for that? As many times as I have asked "lou" to give me the German guys email he has not gotten approval yet.

Where is Axel when you need him?

Just Say N20
12-04-2013, 12:15 PM
Greg, I found it interesting the fuel level and passenger weight seem to have very little affect on top speed for my SS. With full fuel AND 800 lbs of passengers, my boat ran 64.5.

With just me and low fuel in a good 1.5' chop it ran 65.2.

I will say, that when the boat was weighted down it was WAY more stable, and very easy to drive.

The other thing that intrigues me, is that I believe I read that Buizilla's 16OB runs 65 with a 150 Yamaha duo-prop.

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 03:26 PM
Greg-Have you ever tried to track down this "Osiris Perez" guy? He might be able to corroborate some of this.


Germany eh? Why not put Axel on the case?
It's a small community. Can't be that many guys with that type of collection.

I gave a brief run at Osiris Perez but then I changed my focus to the Seattle area and followed bread crumbs out there. I don't have enough local knowledge about Miami or the Marina that Dr Lou said Perez worked at but maybe someone else does. Did the Marina even exist? Until what time? Dr. Lou seems to indicate his 84mph run took place in the mid 1990's so lets say 1995 for a target. Figure Osiris was in his 30's that day of the speed run, he should be in his 50's today? That would be a key bread crumb to hunt down.

Dr Lou said with 100% certainty that both the Donzi and the Magnum Missile went in a container to Germany. I will pm Axel but pm's dont always seem to work here. How many other board members live in Germany at the moment and can find Achtung Baby?

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 03:33 PM
Greg, I found it interesting that with full fuel AND 800 lbs of passengers, my boat ran 64.5. With just me and low fuel in a good 1.5' chop it ran 65.2

Bill, so you ran 64.5mph gps and then you removed about 900lbs of weight and only ran 65.2mph.

1 mph gained after a 900lb diet :embarasse What is WOT RPM for your new mill?

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 03:42 PM
Greg, I am re-checking Bryant's Marine in Seattle and if they were donzi dealers for 5 yrs they didn't sell many boats. I don't see their name too much in the records.

Matty, do you see Bryant's written down at all in your factory record book? Even one entry would also give a name of the buyer which would be a bread crumb into the Seattle community of Donzi owners. I'm not sure how complete your records are from that early as I know that you have said many prior posts that '65 and '66 would have been frantic at the Donzi factory and the records were bad.

Do you have any "FOB Bryant's" entries in the book?

mattyboy
12-04-2013, 04:26 PM
Brownie

said they were a dealer for about 5 years so i am looking up to 1970 have not seen their name yet

jl1962
12-04-2013, 05:05 PM
www.rivermarinesupply.com (http://www.rivermarinesupply.com)

"Serving Miami for over 30 years"

Could this be where Osiris Perez worked?

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 06:17 PM
Forgive my ignorance as I am no expert by any means....but, I'm a pretty good analyst. Please see comments in red.
Better or not, it is still apples/oranges versus a modern powerplant. Maybe better hydrodynamics in the Super Stranglers lower unit required less power (as there was less there) but the mechanical efficiencies of the drive are different also. How the unit functions both as a component and in concert with the hull is unique.

woobs, I'm not following your statement above. Below on the right is the Lower Unit from a OMC Factory Super Strangler 8 pumper. On the left is the Volvo E Drive. When I look at the right side photo I see a case that is faster then the left side case. The Volvo case looks like it has a skeg that would cause a lot of turbulence where the Super Strangler case profile is smooth as an (Achtung Baby's) bottom. The other item on the right hand case is the water inlet locations and intake profile. They look like they love to be surfaced. I think Ed D put 1,000 ponies in front of his Volvo E Drive so he would understand the surfacing potential of that drive profile if there was any.

When I look at the pictures, I see the OMC Race drive being 5mph faster than the Volvo E drive ............ standing still :boggled:

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 06:23 PM
This just in ............The Factory Race Evinrude Super Strangler 8 carb weighed 258lbs without a prop. No blubber on that bad boy

woobs
12-04-2013, 09:00 PM
woobs, I'm not following your statement above. :boggled:

In response to your statement: The other point you missed is that the hydrodynamics of the Super Strangler race motor's case were likely better than today's modern lower units.

Better or not, it is still apples/oranges versus a modern powerplant. Maybe better hydrodynamics in the Super Stranglers lower unit required less power (as there was less there) but the mechanical efficiencies of the drive are different also. How the unit functions both as a component and in concert with the hull is unique.

Greg, We were talking about the ability of a modern 225 hp o/b pushing a baby 16 vs the 177 hp S-Strangler to push an early 16 a mere 10 mph faster. I maintain the superiority of the SStrangler lower end is irrelivant because the drives as a whole are not comparible in the context of our discussion. You have to look at more than just the lower end of a drive.

What is the difference in mechanical efficiencies within the cases? Bearing surfaces, vibration, gear design... friction losses, what is the mechanical cost to turn the tranmission to the the output shaft? Is there flexing due to light weight parts? What is the net power to the prop? How well does the lower work with the upper...as a unit? How does each unit work in concert with the hull? How is the dynamic balance of the boat affected? Yep, you gussed it...we don't know. You can't claim one better in the application than the other as they are apples and oranges.

The SStrangler is slick and light. It has also grown in power estimates during this discussion. But through the evolution of this thread I think we have reasoned that these points are moot. The issue is the early hull and it's lack of lifting surfaces over 60 mph. No matter the benefits of the SStrangler lower drive, its engine still does not produce enough power to lift the hull from the water, reduce the wetted surface and therefore the drag to give the slick lower end the chance to push the boat to 84.

Now, add a couple of feet to the inner strakes and a pad...and we have a ball game!
Do we know the hull in question was factory stock?

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 09:26 PM
Some strake feedback ..........



24 Sonic came from a Donzi Doral that Jay Ross bought the molds . He brought a deck cap to Harry Schoell and when I worked for Harry in the late 70's. I made the deck plug. If you see the detail line around the side deck that is where Donzi ended and Sonic started. In later years working out of the back of my truck I did the Sonic 30. It was a stretched 24 hull, but all new Jay Ross design.

I had the chance to meet Ray Hunts son in Miami and explained to him that hull strakes were a Cuban invention. The plug builders at Bertram put them on the 24 degree dead rise hull plugs to keep from sliding off the up turned hull. He smiled, I assumed in agreement.

I like to call strakes "spraymakers" I have built several boats where I tried with out strakes, then with, then took them off. One time on a 29 center console with an early pair of 225 outboards I went from 64 mph (no strakes) to 60 mph (with strakes)

70 MPH seems to be the magic number for the rounded keel line hulls to get squiggly. Now do as Sonny Levy said. "Do exactly what I say, and if does not work, do the opposite."

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 09:59 PM
Greg, We were talking about the ability of a modern 225 hp o/b pushing a baby 16 vs the 177 hp S-Strangler to push an early 16 a mere 10 mph faster. I maintain the superiority of the SStrangler lower end is irrelivant because the drives as a whole are not comparible in the context of our discussion. You have to look at more than just the lower end of a drive.

What is the difference in mechanical efficiencies within the cases? Bearing surfaces, vibration, gear design... friction losses, what is the mechanical cost to turn the tranmission to the the output shaft? Is there flexing due to light weight parts? What is the net power to the prop? How well does the lower work with the upper...as a unit? How does each unit work in concert with the hull? How is the dynamic balance of the boat affected? Yep, you gussed it...we don't know. You can't claim one better in the application than the other as they are apples and oranges.

woobs, I like to learn and compare for sure but it is not that complex, parts is parts. The OMC Super Strangler motors were proven world class winners. The fact that they were built in 1975 and the 225 Mercury was built in 2005 I don't think means a lick. There are old cars that can get to 60 in 6 seconds and new cars that can't. The OMC race motors were tested under the most severe operating conditions world wide. The guys who raced them say they were basically the best of the best. The 2005 Merc motor? Nice motor, but 125lbs heavier. The Super Strangler obviously worked in tremendous concert with the mid and the powerhead or OMC would not have won world championships.

Now these motors were rated at the prop shaft so the mechanical "shrinkage" you mention was null unless I am missing something from an engineering perspective and god knows I could be. I am trying to get a true beed on the prop shaft horsepower for the Super Strangler because THAT matters in this discussion at the top end. That I agree with you on 100%. I'm not sure it was 177hp, could have been more with 8 throats sucking down high test. I believe the Mercury 225 that pushed the 1970-1978 16 OB Baby to 74 is a true 225hp at the prop from Mercury.

On top of HP, the other thing that would matter is WOT RPM which I also have to get. HP and RPM could kill Dr. Lou's 84mph claim in a nano second :fire:

Now onto the case profile itself which is key in any OB application given you get to set the X dimension that you want. The case makes all the difference in the world or Mercury would not offer three different profiles in 2013 depending on the application. You are pushing a submarine through or on top of the water, hydrodynamics equal speed. I'm saying when I look at the case profile of the Volvo E Drive, Super Strangler lower unit, and the 2004 Mercury 225, I can clearly see how the case on the Super Strangler comes out on top and with those inlets even more so when surfaced.

Dr. Lou's Super Strangler would have been set up for max speed on that 1965 Donzi 16, it probably took a lot to even get the thing up on plane I would think but no one was taking the family for a run either.

Greg Guimond
12-04-2013, 10:05 PM
what steering setup did Walin or Lou have on that 16? cable and roller?

Yes, same system that the fly boys use on wackers today Jim.
I have no idea what steering would be like on an I/O Ski Sporter because I have no experience with those set-ups. The Super Strangler had a factory wing plate system just like these below ..........

Just Say N20
12-05-2013, 10:41 AM
5,300 running a Volvo 290 with trim, spinning a Solas 23. Weight settles the boat, and slows down acceleration, but doesn't seem to make much difference to top end.

bertsboat
12-05-2013, 11:43 AM
Tim Breuil look at the picture of the Red experimental and said it was not the boat her had. There looks to be a solid cover over the engine compartment.
He is looking for pictures and as soon as one surfaces we will post it.
Maybe that was added at a later date.
" Thats not my old boat, mine didnt have cover in the splash well, mine was solid, and I had a canvas tonneau cover on top, , well to the back of seat. that looks like someone did convert I/o to outboard, ill let u know if I find a picture.

Tim "

mattyboy
12-05-2013, 02:04 PM
Tim Breuil look at the picture of the Red experimental and said it was not the boat her had. There looks to be a solid cover over the engine compartment.
He is looking for pictures and as soon as one surfaces we will post it.
Maybe that was added at a later date.
" Thats not my old boat, mine didnt have cover in the splash well, mine was solid, and I had a canvas tonneau cover on top, , well to the back of seat. that looks like someone did convert I/o to outboard, ill let u know if I find a picture.

Tim "



The picture I posted is of hull 452 the current owner has the foil tag from the back seat when the boat was restored. the full canvas cover over time let water in and the back seat was totally rotted the glass work was redone.


I posted notes on the pics they may be hard to read the transom was re-done has well.

Bert ask Tim if his family had any connection to Bachelor's 3 or know who they sold the 16 to.

Greg Guimond
12-05-2013, 02:14 PM
Matty, for how many years has the current owner of 1967 #452 owned it?

Greg Guimond
12-05-2013, 06:14 PM
A look at the inner strakes of a 16 I/O Ski Sporter and a 16 OB Baby. I'm sure there is a computer program somewhere that could calculate the differences in speed :idea:

mattyboy
12-05-2013, 06:24 PM
data point

according to the designer of the early classics Walt Walters the strakes were shortened to give the volvo aq clean water the drive didn't like the turbulent water off longer strakes.

early skisporter and hornet hulls, and the mid 1980s Minx are like this very short inner strakes

the 18 22 and newer hornetII and III are like the ob baby very long inner strakes

the 18 barrelback and baby 14 are sharp keel full length inner strakes

another of Don's boats the cig19/20 went thru this, the first one's had short strakes then longer strakes then they incorporated a pad and the speeds jumped

mattyboy
12-05-2013, 07:32 PM
BTW

found the powerboat magazine will try and get it uploaded to the LGDCC site with more pics and specs was more an article on the 200 motor not the donzi 18.

with the stock OMC prop 5600 rpm and 51 mph

then 5700 rpm and 57 mph with a cleaver they said with the omc sst prop 57-60 mph should be possible the sst was not available at testing time.


I just found a ton of articles on the in crowd of boating back then so I am looking for Wallin stuff

Greg Guimond
12-05-2013, 07:32 PM
I heard back from Charles Strang, ex CEO of OMC and major backer of the factory race program. Here is a small excerpt of what he said .............

mattyboy
12-06-2013, 06:05 AM
Greg

nice response from Mr. Strang a v8 outboard sounds like that is the 22 OB .


The 18 in the article is yellow and white and appeared on the cover has well , working on getting it uploaded to our site it is a big file.

they also said that at 57 mph they felt the 18 was running out of hull

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 07:23 AM
Agreed Matty. Mr. Strang is now 92, the fact that he can remember an OMC V8 from 30 years ago is one thing as CEO of OMC, but how about him calling up the Gil Bracket after all these years!

His "V8" OB reference ties it into the 1-of-1 22 Classic OB that was built as you say. :yes: I think that the letter from Roy Farmer below is interesting as it looks like perhaps the original owner of the 22 Classic OB may have sent the single OB hull back and asked the Donzi factory to set up the hull to accept dual Gil brackets for dual eggbeaters. I guess he bought the 22 in 1982 as a single OB (OMC 300XP) and then sent it back two years later in 1984 to have the extra work done tp prep it for duals. Is that about right?

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 10:36 AM
A data point, according to the designer of the early classics, Walt Walters, the strakes were shortened to give the volvo aq clean water the drive didn't like the turbulent water off the longer strakes.


BTW

found the powerboat magazine it was more an article on the 200 motor not the Donzi 18. with the stock OMC prop 5600 rpm and boat ran 51 mph. then 5700 rpm and 57 mph with a cleaver they said with the omc sst prop 57-60 mph should be possible the sst was not available at testing time.

What year and month is the Powerboat Magazine article on the Donzi 18 OB and Johnson V6 200 motor?

Yes, very interesting data point. Walters shortened the inner strakes to force the hull deeper into the water because the Volvo drive could not manage surfacing. So the drive needed to be deeper because of it's design. By needing to be lower, that meant a Ski Sporter I/O 16 would be slower and not only because of shorter inner strakes, but at least 50% because of the profile of the lower unit and water intake?

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 11:16 AM
Greg - you've run 16 O/Bs faster than anyone here, do you think 84mph was possible?

Jay. It is a stretch for sure but I'm still not convinced that Lou did not clock 84mph under perfect conditions that day in Miami.

Dr. Lou Benz has a lot of specifics around it. Why bother making all that chit up? In my mind why not wrestle the math to the ground and try and figure out what was possible for a Ski Sporter 16 hull bottom to run with an OB race motor on the back. There is a lot of math behind this stuff so getting to it will help. Also, Matty has the 1967 #452 hull now fully involved. That would also have been a 16 Ski Sporter hull bottom with short strakes as well, right? It has an OB on the back of it as we speak. Once I get specifics on what model OB, what steering and what lower that OB was/is running and what speed it clocked last year that will be a really good data point and could crush Dr. Benz's 84mph claim.

And of course, it's Winter lol

mattyboy
12-06-2013, 11:40 AM
I thought the OB 22 was later than that 84 would still be Chisholm ownership then Staples ownership OMC got the reigns to donzi in 1988 ish.


the article on the 200 was in the sept 1975 issue

jl1962
12-06-2013, 11:47 AM
I'm thinking 84 is a biiiiig stretch - but who knows. As you say - it's all good.

I still think you should call River Marine and ask to speak to their longest serving employee - again who knows!

Great find on Charlie Strang. What a legend. Anyone who wants a great winter read should pick up a copy of Iron Fist - The Lives of Carl Kiekhaefer
http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Fist-Lives-Carl-Kiekhaefer/dp/0945903049

The book is mainly about Kiekhaefer (of course), but Charlie Strang (and Wynne to a certain extent) is the hero.

And no, it's NOT winter yet!
Hey, I'm going sailing on Sunday.....

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 12:01 PM
did Lou run that thing around in Biscayne Bay, and thereabouts, at 84 mph with the open stack race motor?

I do not believe so, but then I know more about the Thames then I do about Biscayne Bay :rlol:

mattyboy
12-06-2013, 12:03 PM
Greg

hull 452 has a 1998 rude 175 stock case that has been worked on it by an OB guy 205-215 hp is the estimate with right prop it was gps'd at 68 mph . some 16 mph slower than lou.

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 12:03 PM
I thought the OB 22 was later than that 84 would still be Chisholm ownership then Staples ownership OMC got the reigns to donzi in 1988

I thought that the 22 Classic OB (only factory built one ever) was titled to Woodsy as a 1982 when he had it?

mattyboy
12-06-2013, 12:09 PM
I thought that the 22 Classic OB (only factory built one ever) was titled to Woodsy as a 1982 when he had it?


it may have been but still not OMC donzi so when Mr Strang says they sent over boats from one of the divisions all the time donzi wasn't a division until 1988. Maybe they put the v8 on the 18 they had :eek: or they sent the 22OB to OMC to setup and test. The story was the 22OB never really performed well

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 12:10 PM
I still think you should call River Marine and ask to speak to their longest serving employee. And no, it's NOT winter yet! Hey, I'm going sailing on Sunday.....

Yep, I'm going to leave the River Marine work to Buizilla. He knows everyone down there and would have the pieces and parts.

On Winter, I'm with you but I may only have one more run left in the Team Warlock for yours truly.

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 03:13 PM
I thought the OB 22 was later than that. 1984 would still be Chisholm ownership. OMC did not get the reigns to Donzi until 1988 ish.


The 22ob Classic was an '82, converted to twin 200 Yamaha's in '84. Woodsy had excellent history on it.


It may have been an '82 but it's still not an OMC donzi so when Mr Strang says they sent over boats from one of the divisions all the time donzi wasn't a division until 1988. Maybe they put the v8 on the 18 they had :eek: or they sent the 22 OB to OMC to setup and test.

Ok let's wrestle one eggbeater to the ground at a time. First the 1-of-1, only 22 Classic OB ever built by the Donzi factory and yes it would have had the long inner strakes. We know 100% that this hull is a 1982 HIN. We also know that boat was a closed transom I/O boat with a doghouse where the car motor should have been, correct? Not even a "mini" splash well, correct?

What was the first year that OMC introduced there mighty V8 OB's? Was it 1982?

mattyboy
12-06-2013, 03:55 PM
the v 8 evinrude was 1985 I would assume the johnson was about same time the OB 22 hull number 52 left the factory with a rude 235 in 1983. again it looked like it took longer to complete and get invoiced


http://www.evinrude.com/Historical-Timeline/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gVhTR4Ws3s

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 04:27 PM
The v8 evinrude was 1985. the OB 22 hull number 52 left the factory with a rude 235 in 1983. again it looked like it took longer to complete and get invoiced.

I got it. The 1982 Donzi Classic 22 OB (Hull #52) was built in 1982 but was not delivered and invoiced until sometime in 1983. It had no splashwell whatsoever and was the same as an I/O except that Donzi rigged it with a transom bracket (make unknown but could have been Gil) and a single 1983 Evinrude 235 V6. The Evinrude 235 V6 was first introduced in 1976 and would have been still strong 7 years later as a new 1983 motor.

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 08:26 PM
Was there a second Donzi 22 Classic OB made? Was there ever a true sighting of that 22 OB Donzi? I think it is safe that there was only one ever made.



Sorry, not an OMC built 22, it was a Donzi 22 OB Classic that I heard rumors about that it was made for the OMC launch of the 200 and used as the photo boat; like the 16ob was used for the Mercury 1400 launch. I have never seen the magazine and only know of the one Donzi 22 OB that got turned into an I/O. I have just heard rumors of the second 22 in a magazine. I guess when airride posts pics from the magazine, we will know about the 18ob, or if it was possibly the second factory 22ob. Hard to say

Greg Guimond
12-06-2013, 09:43 PM
I got it. The 1982 Donzi Classic 22 OB (Hull #52) was built in 1982 but was not delivered and invoiced until sometime in 1983. It had no splashwell whatsoever and was the same as an I/O except that Donzi rigged it with a transom bracket (make unknown but could have been Gil) and a single 1983 Evinrude 235 V6. The Evinrude 235 V6 was first introduced in 1976 and would have been still strong 7 years later as a new 1983 motor.

The Evinrude V8 OB was not introduced until 1985. The Donzi 22 OB was built in 1982 and sold in 1983 with a new 1983 Evinrude 235 V6 carb on the back. It was then sent back to the Donzi factory in 1984 and re-rigged by the factory to accept twin bracket mounted Yamaha 225's. If they were truly Yamaha's the details are a little off. Yamaha entered the US market in 1985 with a motor called the Yamaha 220 V6 Special. My thought is that Donzi had a direct line to Yamaha and given Yamaha was very interested in getting the word out for there new OB they willingly worked with Donzi for the re-rig. You could get the V6 220 Special in 25" and 20". So I suspect that after working with there customer and with Yamaha, the Donzi factory returned the boat to the owner in 1985 with a pair of Yamaha "220 Specials" on Gil brackets on the back.

Anyone have pictures from 1985 with the twin Yamaha's before the 22 Classic OB got re-rigged with an OMC V8 at some point later on?

mattyboy
12-07-2013, 05:25 AM
I do recall a custom 22 fish boat outboard but it was a one off non factory boat no deck cc ob

mattyboy
12-07-2013, 06:34 AM
The Evinrude V8 OB was not introduced until 1985. The Donzi 22 OB was built in 1982 and sold in 1983 with a new 1983 Evinrude 235 V6 carb on the back. It was then sent back to the Donzi factory in 1984 and re-rigged by the factory to accept twin bracket mounted Yamaha 225's.....

let's look at that in the discussion a 22 with less weight in the back and less power than they were putting in a standard 18 (260hp)at the time how do we think it performed???

Greg Guimond
12-07-2013, 07:39 AM
That Donzi 22 O/B would have performed like chit with an Evinrude V6 235 Matty :frown:

The thing that is still a little unclear to me is the comment by Mr. Strang about his water testing of a 22 Classic OB. OMC introduced there V8 O/B to the public in 1985. Donzi built the only 22 Classic O/B in 1982. Strang would have had access to the V8 well before the public intro, 1983 would have been no issue. He recalled that the test boat had a Gil bracket on it. The Donzi 18 O/B boats were splashwell hulls and would not have needed a Gil bracket. Strang also recalled a dyno sheet for the OMC V8 so that is fact.

I think that the Donzi factory worked with OMC to hang a V8 on the 1982 Classic 22 and sent it over to the big cheese to see how he liked it. To bad the V8 motor was not yet announced to the public. Donzi hung a 235 V6 Evinrude on it and delivered the 22 OB in 1983.

It ran like crap and got sent back to Roy Farmer to put twin wackers on it in October of 1984. The owner at the time (who was that?) decided to go against the grain and maybe try the "hot" Yamaha V6 Specials on the back?

Greg Guimond
12-07-2013, 07:44 AM
pretty sure it was rigged with t/200's not 225's as the 220 came out in 85-86 b4 the 225's did in '87, I had an '87 225 Excell new and it was a brute on power.

That would be interesting to know Jim.........

The Yamaha V6 220 Special was first sold in 1985. They made more hp than 220 for sure. The Yamaha 2.6L 200 carb was introduced in 1984 to the public, the year before the "V6 Special's"

"The development of Yamaha's leisure-specific outboards began in 1981, and within three short years the project produced a lineup of twelve 2-stroke models ranging from 40 to 220 hp and exemplified by popular models like the 150A. With this lineup, Yamaha Motor went to the 1983 Chicago Boat Show and launched its entry into the important US market."

Greg Guimond
12-07-2013, 10:22 AM
me thinks Mr Strang's memory is clouded......


BUIZILLA, do you think that Mr. Strang was testing an 18 Donzi in his back yard instead of the 22 O/B ? Because I'm not seeing Mr. Strang confusing a Donzi in his back yard (18 O/B or 22 O/B) with a Four Winns, even at 95.

mattyboy
12-08-2013, 06:20 AM
ok almost done with the article on hull 452 trying to wrap it up in a nice neat package ,

Bert if you can ask Tim if they ever lent the boat for a donzi photo shoot, if his family has any connections to Bachelors 3 and who they sold it to.

I think I have a pretty complete history on the boat now .

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 07:04 AM
That's cool, should be a good read Matty. From the picture it looks like 1967 #452 had the transom replaced as the "double" height transom lip that is shown in the press photo is long gone.

mattyboy
12-08-2013, 07:36 AM
That's cool, should be a good read Matty. From the picture it looks like 1967 #452 had the transom replaced as the "double" height transom lip that is shown in the press photo is long gone.


Greg
would the motor pictured in the "negative exposure reversed" ad photo have the same foot print when it came to the width of the mounting bracket as a 175 merc black max??

the fuel fill is still on the back but remember it is on the other side just like the helm. over the years that small canvas cover lead to the back seat area rotting out.

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 07:51 AM
Funny you mention the fuel fill Matty as that is the first thing I thought of as verification. That and the canvas cover are a 100% match. Now as to the weed eater's "clamp bracket" that is something BUIZILLA or others might be able to comment on. My assumption (and only that) is that the actual mounting bolt pattern of ANY outboard motor would be identical over the decades for production motors. The "ghosting" however of the clamp brackets on various motors could most likely be different though as the thickness and size of the clamp brackets probably changed over the years I would think.

Do you know what model year the Mercury 175 Black Max wacker would have been?

mattyboy
12-08-2013, 08:00 AM
Greg

i know very little about newer OB and making them go fast. i have picked up a few facts here and there. One would be it seems jacking the motor up helps. my point as motors got bigger and more powerful I would think so did their mounting brackets. So the double lip transom might not be wide enough and for modern power may be too low that's why when the transom was re-done it was one level

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 08:29 AM
Gotcha Matty. We know 100% that the 1967 #452 16 photo shoot boat had a 1968 Mercury 1250 (125hp) on it when the photo was snapped. Mercury had just introduced the 125 in 1968. The Donzi factory probably had a flat lip on the #452 splash well when they first built it initially. Then, perhaps when they actually ran the OB 16 for the first time, maybe it would not run correctly at that transom height and they needed to lower the motor. The only way to do that in 1967 would have been to cut a slice off the lip and voila, you have the two tier splash well lip in the photo shot.

Then, three decades later when a new transom was installed, there was no need for that so it was eliminated :)

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 09:33 AM
whatever size hull Charlie thought he ran... what color was it?

Come on lol, we want a 95 year old guy who has seen literally 1,000's of boats and driven 100's to remember the hull colors of "one" Donzi O/B from at least 30 years ago?
The guy clearly ran a one-off Donzi O/B with an Evinrude 300 weed eater on the back.

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 09:42 AM
The Donzi O/B line-up ............



the original 22 full transom was brown/tan - Correct, everyone agrees that 1982 Classic 22 O/B #52 was brown and tan and had an I/O hatch and a closed transom that would have demanded a bracket
the original OMC 18 was yellow/white - Can anyone produce a color picture of this Donzi 18 Classic O/B ? What year was the hull?
the original 16 was red/white - Well, the 1967 short strake Ski Sporter 16 O/B #452 was red and white. I'm still not convinced it was the 1st built though. The purported Gerry Walin 1965 is still in the hunt

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 09:54 AM
the aforementioned 22ob/splashwell was also spotted by Jody Staples and photo'd by CDMA, unkownest to each other, on two different occasions on Marsh Harbour Marina docks, there was a topic on S&F when the owner restored and repowered that 22ob boat as well, that hull ran very very well with early and late power

So this means that there was a "second" Classic 22 O/B built at the Donzi factory with a real splash well? A mystery boat that was built after the 1982 #52 Classic 22 O/B? Jody knows his chit an would know a 22 from an 18 upon viewing I would think. Even if the viewing was from a bit of a distance down there in the Bahamas.

The Donzi weedeater plot thickens :embarasse

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 01:04 PM
I never said the Bahamas boat was factory built.... Jody for sure and and CDMA both got within a few feet of it.. I think your walking across a desert in search of water, and it ain't there... :nilly:

Won't be the first arid desert I've encountered in my short life ;) One thing for sure is when it is done, I'll have had some fun and narrowed down the possibilities.

As to the 22 OB, riddle me this, do you think the Donzi factory built two OB's or just one? I think they only built one 22 Classic O/B and it was 1982 hull #52. I also think that Charlie Strang tested it in 1983 with a V8 Evinrude O/B on the back. He called out the Gil Bracket being on the boat he had in his back yard. Fixed Gil brackets were prevalent back in that era. That comment, to me, points to the 22 especially when you add the weight of that V8 wacker. A closed transom Donzi 22 Classic would also need a lot of setback to allow the V8 to tilt up.

So there is my opinion, crystal clear, just like the fact I could never get 80mph in my 16, only 79 on GPS :biggrin:

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 01:08 PM
he stated his wife ran the chit out of it, both can't be that dementia'd at this point :cool:

I spoke to Dean Hobart yesterday and he said Strang is pretty darn sharp at age 95. Must be a DNA thing.

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 01:19 PM
It doesn't "matter", it's just fun to research and it's Winter. And it looks like you and I then do agree that the 1982 Classic 22 is the only factory O/B boat with a provenance. That is a fact we both agree on. If #52 ever had a pilot with the last name of Strang driving it in 1983 we disagree on. Works AOK for me to disagree on that point.

Greg Guimond
12-08-2013, 03:32 PM
Neither of us are disputing that O/B 22 Classic #52 left the Donzi factory with a single V6 Evinrude 235 wacker on the back in 1983 BUIZILLA. That also would have been the first year that the 2.6L Yamaha 200hp O/B became available in the United States market. If the old owner of #52 is still alive today he would know why he later went with the twin Yamaha 200's on a 22 footer. Maybe he had an "in". Hard to say.

The boat could have been driven by a Strang in 1983 before it was delivered to the buyer, in 1984 when it came back to Donzi for the twin re-rig as it came back into the factory already rigged for Evinrude power at that moment, or it could have been driven by a Strang several years later, Charlie did not indicate what year it was in his back yard exactly. After it had a single 235 Evinrude on it for 1983 and some of 1984, it then went back to the factory in October 1984 to be converted by Roy Farmer and crew to twin wackers using Gil brackets. The brackets were bought By Donzi for the re-rig effort. I'm sure the conversion would not have taken the Donzi factory boys long to do at all. The factory shows an invoice for the work dated December 4, 1984 so safe to say that on January 1, 1985 it left the Donzi factory with two brackets and two Yamaha O/B's on it. The owner then supplied the Yamaha O/B's as you pointed out earlier but Donzi installed the motors per the letter from Roy Farmer. In 1985 those O/B's could have been Yamaha 200's or possibly V6 Special 220's which had just been introduced in 1985. How many years it ran with the twin Yamaha's on the back I have no idea but would be interesting to know for sure.

I just don't see Strang making a mistake about whether he or the wife were driving an 18 or a 22. An 18 Classic with a monster Evinrude V8 on the back seems to not make any commercial business sense. I'm with Mr. Strang that as he said in his note, he tested a 22 Classic. He could be off a couple of years. If we knew how many years the #52 hull was owned and ran with the twin Yamaha's on the back that would further narrow things down. That is probably pretty easy to find out.

Morgan's Cloud
12-08-2013, 04:35 PM
This thread is more intriguing than watching 3 back to back episodes of 'Ancient Aliens' on the history channel . :tooth:

Greg Guimond
12-09-2013, 09:49 PM
If you look very closely at the picture below of 1982 22 Classic O/B (Hull #52) you can just barely see the cowls of the twin Yamaha O/B's that the hull was re-rigged with in December 1984 and then returned by the Donzi factory to it's owner in January 1985. The cowls have a lot of white lettering, although you have to magnify. If the hull was re-rigged with Yamaha 200's the cowls would not have had that much white. The layout and the amount of white probably indicates that the motors that the owner supplied to the Donzi factory were in fact Yamaha 220 Specials known as "V6 Specials". When I looked at how late in 1984 the re-rig by Donzi occurred, it aligns to the fact that V6 Specials would have been available in late 1984. I originally thought they did not get to the public until 1985 but I was wrong, it was middle 1984. So the boat went from having a 1983 Evinrude 235 V6 pushing it to having two 1984 Yamaha 220 Specials pushing it as a New Years gift 1985.

The V6 Special was a new hot set-up for wackers of the day and Yamaha was trying to make a name for itself. The motors ran 34mm carbs and were advertised as "220+ horsepower" :yippie:

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 07:03 AM
Here is the advertisement from Yamaha in 1984 announcing the V6 Special. They were rumored to make more like 240hp instead of the 220+ that is stated in the ad. The 1982 Classic 22 O/B would have been packing 440 ponies on the back and those motors would have been light at around 375lbs each. I wonder how it performed?

Now that is wrestled to the ground I can return to the 16 wacker and the hunt for Red October ............:rofl:

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 07:52 AM
And the boat and a picture of the V6 Special motor side by side ..........

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 08:46 AM
I love snow days. The stable of red headed school children. Donzi 16 O/B, 18 O/B and 22 O/B models ...........

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 09:20 AM
Greg > River Marine Supply 305.856.0080, been around since '72ish I think, there WAS a River Marine years ago, not sure if they were/are the same owner, that was directly on the river, and I think WAS a Donzi mini-dealer at one time the name Osiris Perez rings a bell, may use the nickname Ozzy, I do work for about 20-25 outboard shops around here so someone has to know the name. Greg, went through my customer file, sent you a breadcrumb...

I followed up on your breadcrumb and called. Spoke to Ozzy but it was the wrong Ozzy. He did however say that he gets calls from time to time asking if he is Osiris Perez so maybe the guy is still out there somewhere.

I have another breadcrumb to follow-up on and what could become a slice of bread regarding the purported 1965 16 O/B. Should be interesting to follow the lead.

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 09:22 AM
which begs another question on the 22ob...at what point was the hull color changed, from brown to blue?

I pm'd Woodsy seeing as he owned the 22 O/B but doubt he comes here anymore. I was also wondering if he knew what year the Evinrude V8 got installed replacing the twin Yamaha 220 Specials. I'm curious why the owner would have gone from twins to a single V8 Evinrude that made 315hp and weighed 565lbs. The big V8's were introduced in 1985.

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 04:44 PM
In 1973/74 I was working for the local Evinrude dealer. The manager was a real racer of small outboard deep v's. Evinrude supplied him with a Super Strangler for the promotional aspect. I find it incredible that the same engine on a C16 could do 85. The boat would have to have been literally built out of tissue paper.


Greg, I ran the numbers @ 7000 rpm on 1 to 1 gear turning a 14 ish pitch prop at 10 % slip 84 is possible. I am having a hard time dealing with that number of 84mph on "lou's" boat knowing how hard and how much power we have seen put into a 16 to make it get into the 70's let alone the 80's. Are you saying the stacker is capable of that kind of power???


As another data point here is a video of a former forum member doing clocking 74mph with a box stock 16 OB Baby ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKksEHMDag


I ran some hp/weight/rpm calculations myself, and 84 mph would take a one off potato chip hull, and well north of 8,000 rpm, and over 200 hp to get r done.. I don't care how good a driver you may be, but to just jump in and run 10 mph faster than what's been done even to this day with current tech engines is pretty far fetched. i'm also not satisfied that the hull technology at that time would support what we're hearing either..oh, and the chine walk starts at 57-58... we're going to have to see some really concrete evidence pretty soon


Hmmm, I was outside plowing my driveway after finding and sending a text to Mike Jones, (still alive) the holder of a supposed breadcrumb. As I was pushing snow with the Ventrac I said " 'ol lou's claim of 84mph on Garmin GPS in the Gerry Walin 1965 short straked 16 O/B is getting harder to believe. The boys hate short straked I/O 16 Ski Sporter hulls because they don't create enough lift to go fast. They chine walk at 58 with a car motor. I should just bail, "lou" was punch drunk and no one can find Osiris Perez. Maybe the glare off Miami waters made him see 84mph when it was only 74 "

Naah .......... let me take a deeper look, it's snowing outside and I can't take my December Warlock run :doh:

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 05:00 PM
But first a question. I know nothing about car motors, or the drives that attach to them. I have heard a lot of folks comment that the Volvo "E-drive" seems to be faster on a 64-68 Ski Sporter 16 compared to any other drive of that era when the motors are the same. I thought I have read on the forum that if you have an "E-drive" or can find one that your 16 Ski Sporter will go 8mph faster with it installed.

Holy crap, is that true in general?

mattyboy
12-10-2013, 05:35 PM
But first a question. I know nothing about car motors, or the drives that attach to them. I have heard a lot of folks comment that the Volvo "E-drive" seems to be faster on a 64-68 Ski Sporter 16 compared to any other drive of that era when the motors are the same. I thought I have read on the forum that if you have an "E-drive" or can find one that your 16 Ski Sporter will go 8mph faster with it installed.

Holy crap, is that true in general?


in general I would say the avg would be 5 mph 6-7 possible as I said before it uses merc racing props not Volvo it has a slippery design and it raises the X all which help an AQ classic.

geoo got mighty mouse into the 90's with one when the boat was a Volvo brian e in lk George has an x 18 that screams with one

I was always afraid to pick one up and get hooked on that 5 mph only to have the lower fail which they did quite often then gve the 5 mph back

mattyboy
12-10-2013, 05:47 PM
here's Brian E running the x with an E drive

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 05:48 PM
In general I would say the avg gain would be 5 mph 6-7 possible as I said before it raises the X all which help an AQ classic.

Gotcha. I guess the 18 footers got 7mph gain but the 16 Ski Sporter got a solid 5mph gain from the narrow housing and the higher X. It sounds like a 5mph gain is pretty much a guarantee for a 64-68 Ski Sporter 16, power for power. Very nice. How did the E-drive draw in water on a 16? Where were the inlets?

mattyboy
12-10-2013, 05:53 PM
a lot of the early 16s had a pickup under the motor in the hull bottom my 67 did

that green 16 I would love to find that has the longer strakes and the e drive should go pretty good Bill knows the boat

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 06:01 PM
Ok, so an E-drive on a 1964-1968 (short inner strake) Ski Sporter 16 guarantees a 5mph increase in speed and the water inlet is actually in the hull bottom not in the drive itself. Was the skeg a "bolt on" option?
I recognize that the flush plate is missing in the picture below but any bolt on approach should be a speed robber with all those crevices to grab water and slow the 16 down :lookaroun:

mattyboy
12-10-2013, 06:43 PM
I think the one on the green boat was cut down

Greg Guimond
12-10-2013, 07:53 PM
This certainly is an interesting discussion but I don't believe there is any way to prove the 84mph claim using the 1965 hull and race motor. If anyone had pushed a stock '65 hull with an o/b to 84 mph it would only prove the hull can get there.


Sorry Greg, I don't buy that part of lou's story about 84 with mid 70s OB technology on a 1800lb boat.


So the extra inner strake length is really the only difference between a '65 Ski Sporter hull bottom and a '75 OB Baby hull bottom. Then you have the e-case that is worth 5mph in top speed advantage. So the 1965 16 Ski Sporter "old" hull bottom does 60mph with an average 275hp pushing it and shorter strakes slowing it.

So we have a pretty good framework with data ........

1. An "old" '64-"68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions
2. An "old" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there
3. An "old" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs
4. A "modern" 1970-1978 OB 16 Baby (with longer inner strakes) with a Mercury 225 making 225hp at 5400rpm does a you tube validated 74mph under perfect conditions with no tabs

How does the purported 1965 16 "OB 1" lay down 84mph on Garmin GPS in 1996 running a 1976 race Super Strangler motor and lower unit with Osiris Perez watching? Fact or Miami Myth? Stay tuned.

Just Say N20
12-10-2013, 10:02 PM
The green/red Donzi belongs to a very good friend of mine.

It originally had the long fin on the bottom of the drive, but an "incident" removed a good part of it, so he filed it flush. He said it made no recognizable difference in the performance of the boat if I remember correctly.

The boat is in Stowe, VT. Paul used it on Lake Champlain. It is for sale.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?62929-1974-Donzi-Ski-Sporter-V8-E-drive-(NOT-MINE)&highlight=1974+Donzi

Paul is the second owner of the boat, and I would guess he bought it around 1980.

jl1962
12-11-2013, 04:39 AM
That E-drive 16 is very cool and a great deal!

And the attachment point on the shift cover for a steering arm is interesting.......

Morgan's Cloud
12-11-2013, 05:01 PM
Greg , I realize this thread is slowly morphing , like many of them do but I have to say that I'm sure I recall seeing a poster from OMC waayyy back in the day that had the 2 (possibly) 18 O/B's running side by side .
I'm sure one was yellow and one was red. I can't recall if one was Evinrude powered and the other Johnson or not .

I know it would have been in either the then Evinrude or Johnson dealer's workshop .

Can I trust my foggy memory? Well , I DID remember the mysterious Star Brite ad with Don and Bill Muncey .

Also , the photo of the Evinrude 3.6XP has the same exhaust as I remember on my old boss's Super Strangler .

Greg Guimond
12-11-2013, 05:19 PM
Your memory is doing just fine! Anyone who can remember that Star Brite ad is aok in my book. I trekked through a lot of desert before getting to that ad. This thread IS morphing to become the primary data source for Donzi O/B's. I like getting to the bottom of things. Now those two 18 Classic OB's would be very cool to see. I suspect that there is a picture of the yellow one available to all of us, as I think Matty has the actual 1971 Powerboat Magazine article. I'm sure he will post a picture of it for inspection.

Greg Guimond
12-12-2013, 09:43 PM
So we have a pretty good framework with data ........

1. An "old" '64-"68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions
2. An "old" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there
3. An "old" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs
4. A "modern" 1970-1978 OB 16 Baby (with longer inner strakes) with a Mercury 225 making 225hp at 5400rpm does a you tube validated 74mph under perfect conditions with no tabs

How does the purported 1965 16 "OB 1" lay down 84mph on Garmin GPS in 1996 running a 1976 race Super Strangler motor and lower unit with Osiris Perez watching? Fact or Miami Myth?

Greg Guimond
12-12-2013, 09:49 PM
For starters, you need to look at the lower units. Not just the profile itself but where the entire lower aligns with the hull bottom

Greg Guimond
12-12-2013, 09:57 PM
Matty's 1967 Ski Sporter 16 O/B #452, running the I/O bottom (short inner chines) was able to run 68mph with 210hp and a lower unit that had no low water pickup. That meant that the lower unit was buried pretty deep to get the needed water pressure. A lot deeper than needed. It also ran 5500 RPM as a max. Hmmmmm. It still clocked 68mph on GPS, blowing right past the "problem" bottom of the short straked Ski Sporter.

That is a full 10mph faster than expected.

So lets assume that the Gerry Walin 16 OB had a Super Strangler that made the identical 210hp as the motor on the back of the 1967 hull. If the motor on the #452 hull makes 210hp and goes 68mph with water inlets that would require the lower unit to be buried super deep. How could the same hull, with a motor that made the same power, clock a GPS # of 84mph?

Greg Guimond
12-13-2013, 06:31 AM
I'm not sure if anyone has ever measured, but look how many inches below the keel pad this E drive lower unit is in the picture. And I believe that folks have indicated that on a Ski Sporter 16 one of the benefits of the Volvo E drive was that it offered a higher X dimension.

Just Say N20
12-13-2013, 06:44 AM
Measurements from an e-drive I owned. REALLY wanted to get it running. Even found a parts source, but it was $6,000 for the parts.

Interesting comparison between the "vital statistics" of the Volvo 290 lower, and the e-drive.

Greg Guimond
12-13-2013, 04:57 PM
Measurements from an e-drive I owned. REALLY wanted to get it running. Interesting comparison between the "vital statistics" of the Volvo 290 lower, and the e-drive.

That is helpful data Bill. Very interesting. So with that I did some assumptions below. These are really not assumptions I guess, they look to be factual at this point unless I have missed something.


1. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions --
A Ski Sporter would go 59mph with the 4 1/2" diameter Volvo 270/280/290 lower unit bullet.

2. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there --
Decreasing the diameter of the bullet to 2 7/8" via the E-Drive immediately added 5mph in top speed to the same boat. The lower unit was still so deep having a skeg did not even matter.

3. An "old style" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed over and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs --
The 1967 Donzi O/B hull #452 that Matty has a picture of runs an Evinrude with a bullet diameter of 4 1/8". Even with that big a bullet, it still added 4mph in top speed. What is more telling is the fact that the lower unit still HAD TO BE deep because the lower unit does not have low water pickups. Deeper drives = slower speeds.

4. A "new style" 1970-1978 OB 16 Baby (with the longer inner strakes) with a 2004 Mercury 225 making 225hp at 5400rpm does a video validated 74mph under perfect conditions with no trim tabs --
The new style OB 16 Baby looks to be running a Torquemaster lower unit. The bullet diameter on that particular drive is 4 1/4" so almost the same as the Evinrude on #452. Still it bumped the top speed up to 74 mph with only 25 extra horsepower. Why, because the drive was able to run higher due to low water pickups. The longer inner strakes are playing almost no role. In addition, this 16 OB Baby actually had many 76mph runs and one 77 if I remember correctly. So you are now only 8mph away from Dr. Lou Benz's claim of 84mph on GPS in 1996 with the purported 1965 OB 1 Donzi 16 running a 1976 Evinrude Super Strangler race motor in Miami.


The 1976 16 Baby the drive is running the "highest" of any of the 4 examples shown above. Higher drive = faster speeds and when you are that high, you will need a skeg. Woobs, what am I missing?

Just Say N20
12-13-2013, 06:54 PM
Greg, it is hard to tell from the measurements and pictures how "slippery" an e-drive really is. Not only is the bullet narrower, but the vertical section is also much thinner, and the longer length overall make it have substantially less drag. And while not a lot higher, Paul's prop would break loose when planning off, and then bite hard.

Greg Guimond
12-13-2013, 07:05 PM
Bill, would be cool to know how many inches below the keel your friends E-Drive bullet is. From what I've read, the minute you bolted an E-Drive on a 16 Ski Sporter you'd gain 5mph in top speed with 100% certainty.

Greg Guimond
12-13-2013, 10:47 PM
Does anyone have a 1964-1968 Ski Sporter 16 that they could take a measurement off? The prop shaft centerline up to bottom of the keel pad. Ideally, BOTH a standard Volvo 270-280-290 drive and an E-drive to compare the X dimension differences of both would be great.

1. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions --
A Ski Sporter would go 59mph with the 4 1/2" diameter Volvo 290 lower unit bullet.

2. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there --
Decreasing the diameter of the bullet to 2 7/8" via the E-Drive immediately added 5mph in top speed to the same boat. The drive was still so deep the skeg did not even matter.

Just Say N20
12-14-2013, 12:18 PM
It has been 35 years since I have been in Paul's Ski-Sporter with the e-drive, but I don't remember it chine walking at all.

Some one could buy his boat, and we could get some verifiable, accurate data. :)

Greg Guimond
12-14-2013, 01:19 PM
Gotcha, I thought he was right near you for a quick X dimension measure. Cool drive and fast. Five year production run as I understand it so the Volvo E-drive would have aligned identically with the production years of the Evinrude Super Strangler V4 which was 1972 to 1976.

Greg Guimond
12-14-2013, 01:28 PM
Here is a side by side comparison picture of the 4 drives ............ not including the Super Strangler claimed 84mph drive from "lou" :smile:


1. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions --
A Ski Sporter would go 59mph with the 4 1/2" diameter Volvo AQ 290 lower unit bullet.

2. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical Volvo E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there --
Decreasing the diameter of the bullet to 2 7/8" and lengthening it via the E-Drive immediately added 5mph in top speed to the same boat. The lower unit was still so deep having a skeg did not even matter.

3. An "old style" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed over and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs --
The 1967 Donzi O/B hull #452 that Matty has a picture of runs an Evinrude with a bullet diameter of 4 5/8". Even with that big a bullet, it still added 4mph in top speed. What is more telling is the fact that the lower unit still HAD TO BE deep because the lower unit does not have low water pickups. Deeper drives = slower speeds.

4. A "new style" 1970-1978 OB 16 Baby (with the longer inner strakes) with a 2004 Mercury 225 making 225hp at 5400rpm does a video validated 74mph under perfect conditions with no trim tabs --
The new style OB 16 Baby looks to be running a Torquemaster lower unit. The bullet diameter on that particular drive is 4 3/4" so almost the same as the Evinrude on #452. Still it bumped the top speed up to 74 mph with only 25 extra horsepower. Why, because the drive was able to run higher due to low water pickups. The longer inner strakes are playing almost no role. In addition, this 16 OB Baby actually had many 76mph runs and one 77 if I remember correctly.

So you are now only 8mph away from Dr. Lou Benz's claim of 84mph on GPS in 1996 with the purported 1965 OB 1 Donzi 16 running a 1976 Evinrude Super Strangler race motor in Miami.

That is a big 8mph.

mattyboy
12-15-2013, 09:03 AM
looking at the pictures I have of a volvo setup it looks like the anti cav plate is even with the bottom off the keel on the e drive and the std aq lower . both on the 16 and the 18.

Greg Guimond
12-15-2013, 03:06 PM
Interesting Matty.

Based on Bill's measurements of both a "290" and an "E" it looks like you raise the prop shaft 1.5" higher once you switch over to the E drive. That would also help toward the total gain of 5mph that you get.

Greg Guimond
12-15-2013, 04:06 PM
Yes agreed. The yellow box I drew above was just to help visualize roughly where the keel line would intersect that Volvo E-Drive. Kind of a representation of cavitation plate and prop shaft height given no one has easy access to a 290 or E on a 16 to actually measure.

Greg Guimond
12-15-2013, 06:03 PM
Some interesting comments on inner strake length .............


A couple of years ago Rootsy posted an explanation of why boats w/the shorter inner strakes perform better than full length inner strakes. Look it up, it's very enlightening.

Just Say N20
12-15-2013, 10:11 PM
Some of what Rootsy said:

"problem with the 16's is the excessive bow lift and rearward position of the CG especially with a V8... the bottom lacking inner strakes that extend rearward such as the 18 classic causes excessive chinewalk (lateral movement from side to side) for the bottom has nothing to balance on and the torque on the sterndrive pushes the boat over on the port chine when you trim enough to get it up... the hull acts as a wedge in the water and really slows you down... the 18's run much flatter and are a lot more stable than the 16's. there has been much debate on the 16 stability and ability to run fast but low 50's is standard for a V8 powered 16... the 4.3's are a bit faster, 55 - 57 because of the loss of a few hundred pounds in the rear which moves the CG forward. my boat runs MUCH better with a full tank of gas..."

Greg Guimond
12-15-2013, 10:51 PM
Bill you have a lot of outboard experience and a lot of Ski Sporter 16 experience. How do you feel about the 68mph claim with short inner strakes?


3. An "old style" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed over and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs --
The 1967 Donzi O/B hull #452 that Matty has a picture of runs an Evinrude with a bullet diameter of 4 1/8". Even with that big a bullet, it still added 4mph in top speed.
What is more telling is the fact that the lower unit still HAD TO BE deep because the lower unit does not have low water pickups. Deeper drives = slower speeds.

woobs
12-16-2013, 06:07 AM
Some interesting comments on inner strake length .............
I think you have to look at each hull design on it`s own merits or lack therof. The factory was obviously aware of the short strake issue on the 16... and they changed the design.

This is significant as it cost money and time to make this change. The factory did not build these boats exclusively for racing and their performance before the change was closer to exceptional than acceptable for a consumer product.

So why incur the costs to make the change... because it`s a better design and helps the 16 perform better.

Just Say N20
12-16-2013, 06:10 AM
Greg,

I'm slightly skeptical. The only fly in my skepticism ointment is hearing that Buizilla's Baby OB runs 65 mph with a Yamaha DuoProp.

Weight must have a lot to do with it, although it would be interesting to know how deep he is running his drive.

Rootsy's comment about V6 16s running as fast, or faster than V8 drives would tend to mirror my experience, so weight, or lack of weight, in the back does help. He wrote which I cut/pasted in 2002, and was delighted to hit almost 65 with his running a Merc Alpha.

I mentioned before that the V6 2bbl, 190 hp Sweet 16, with the shorter inner strakes runs 55-56. Mine ran 57 with 70 hp more. His boat has an OMC Cobra drive, and I am running a Volvo 290, which is known to be very inefficient. With a deeply buried Volvo, adding almost 180 hp (to date) netted me another 8 mph. And I also saved at least 100 lbs by running an aluminum intake and CMI headers.

I suppose that at some point, the super lightness could allow the boat to run that much freer, but the problem I still have is the lack of pad. A wide, rounded keel, with no lifting strakes back there just doesn't provide much additional lift beyond a certain speed.

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 06:21 AM
Skeptical that #452 does 68mph ?

Just Say N20
12-16-2013, 07:29 AM
Yes. I would say I would say there is a 30% chance it would run 68.

There is a 0% chance in my mind it ran 84.

mattyboy
12-16-2013, 07:45 AM
Rootsy's focus was really more on the ride of the sharp keeled full inner strake barrelback over the standard 18 2+3 with the strakes that end just short of the transom. he did touch on the 16 design and knew the handling of the old hull as the new sweet 16 mold was taken from a splash of the old hull being made at the time.


I wonder if the short strakes were needed on the volvo cause of the lower design or the available prop technology at the time??

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 08:25 AM
I don't think I ever posted anywhere that my boat ran 65... it will run 59-60. I run the jack plate pretty high.

Jim does your Yamaha TRP 175 have a low water pickup? How many inches below the keel bottom is the propshaft to get a consistent 60mph on your 16 OB?

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 12:23 PM
What is WOT for the 2.6L carb?

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 03:15 PM
Yes. I would say I would say there is a 30% chance it would run 68. There is a 0% chance in my mind it ran 84.

Interesting. I would say there is a 100% chance that Matty's #452 could run 68mph and a 30% chance that the 1965 could have run 84mph. I'm not sure if Matty has his write up yet on #452 with the Johnson but maybe the owner/driver of that boat is still alive and was the one who claimed a 68mph run.

mattyboy
12-16-2013, 03:56 PM
Interesting. I would say there is a 100% chance that Matty's #452 could run 68mph and a 30% chance that the 1965 could have run 84mph. I'm not sure if Matty has his write up yet on #452 with the Johnson but maybe the owner/drive of that boat is still alive and was the one who claimed a 68mph run.

this is from the current owner of hull 452

on my question of the hull number:

" it was on the underside of the dash, but the seller also gave me a little metal tab that had been removed from the boat in an envelope with the title. He was an oldtimer, must have been 80 when I bought the boat from him and had been in North Miami in business since the early 50's."

on my question of the current setup:

" I gutted the dash and put in the gaffrig "period" looking gauges . Also Hydraulic Steering,Gafrig Analog GPS Speedo, and real nice sounds. I had a guy in Ft Worth hot rod a 1998 Evinrude 175 (because they are real slim) to about 200 horses and added a Jackplate and Bennett Trim Tabs.
Amazed anybody that ever rode in it how dry and comfortable it was in chop. I used to commute to the next island over (North Caicos) about 8 miles and run about 50ft off the nicest secluded beaches in the world as the sun came up. What a ride! just me and the birds and a few early fisherman."


When I first rigged it I went 68 mph with a sexy prop without really trying. I just run a basic OMC prop now in case I hit a coral head or whatever so the prop will just bend.
I've got a few pics on this computer but most are down on the island (film was still around when I re-did the boat) When I get back down I'll dig them up.



" If I kept the throttle just under the high speed jets kicking in, the boat cruises at 35 mph and gets great consumption.(very important with gas at $7.50 per gallon) The engine is balanced and ported and has reed valves, so it will still get your attention if you open it up from 35 mph."

on the discussion of weight here is the fuel fill on 452 located on the starboard side rear deck

Just Say N20
12-16-2013, 04:15 PM
Jim,

I don't believe it was you that posted a speed for your Baby. I thought I read that in a post someone else contributed after AOTH this year. They were commenting on how well your boat ran, and how quick it got out to the front for a while when people took off. But my memory is fuzzy-ish, so I could be way off.

The speeds you mentioned make perfect sense, especially at the height you are running the drive.

While the "personal best" I have seen on GPS so far of 65.3 mph is nothing spectacular in the land of several 80 mph I/O 16s, I do consider it a solid achievement with the Volvo 290 drive.

And I know what you mean about your boat being so darned reliable that you don't want to mess with it. I feel that same way about mine. There is something very nice about KNOWING that when you turn the key, it will start, and behave just as it should.

I still am a little skeptical about the 68 mph claim. 150 prop shaft hp, running a duo-prop at a much higher than normal height runs 61 on a good day. And then a guestimated 200 hp (at where) without the benefit of a high mount (?) runs 68, or 7 mph faster?

I almost doubled my horsepower to gain 8 mph. . . .

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 04:17 PM
I think that you have to stop thinking car motor #'s

mattyboy
12-16-2013, 06:10 PM
as a reference point my 67 with a 1.6 250 no trim and a nose cone solas 21 and about 310hp ran just about to 60 on most days 62 gps'd was the best I ever saw so anything that addresses the height or the shape of the aq lower will help a lot. now shedding 800 lbs and moving the tank weight back too, a modern lower and a jack plate I think 68 is well with in reason.

Just Say N20
12-16-2013, 06:15 PM
Ok. When I had the 16' Laser made, for the first 1.5 years I ran a V4 140 hp. The boat ran 68 mph, running a MERC solid hub 24" chopper prop. No nose cone, transom jack or any other high speed stuff.

When I was comfortable running the boat, I upgraded to a V6 200 Evinrude. Over the next year I added a transom jack, nose cone, cockpit cover with a cut out for the driver, etc. Running a 31" ss cleaver, I topped at 87 mph.

So in the outboard world, on an appropriate hull, that 60 additional hp netted almost 20 more mph. But, that was a pad bottomed, super light weight "river racer" boat.

Car engine or outboard, the hull is still a major determining factor in overall performance. I will grant you that, while possible, I still find it unlikely to get a baby 16 running 68. 84 is a whole other story.

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 08:34 PM
The inner strakes certainly play a role but that becomes less prevalent as the speeds increase. You are just not running enough hull in the water to matter as much.

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 09:03 PM
This is from the current owner of hull #452 ..............

I had a guy in Ft Worth hot rod a 1998 Evinrude 175 to about 200 horses and added a Jackplate and Bennett Trim Tabs. When I first rigged it I went 68 mph with a sexy prop without really trying.

This guy is the current owner of #452 and seems to be very confident of his 68mph speed. I see zero reason based on the math that he could not easily get to 68mph. The tabs where he has them mounted would not even play a role at those speeds, they are out of the water.

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 09:13 PM
My engine loafs along at only 5100-5200, trimmed out to 5400 doesn't get me any more speed, just more dancing and bobbling, with 65 gal and me and Bob Wilson in almost flat water we saw 60.2 @ 5100 with a pair of 25" props.

There is a mint Yamaha 300 Phase III for sale right now. They run 89 octane and make just shy of 340 horsepower. Buy it and put it on the back of your '96 and run it like you stole it. Your Yamaha 150 TRP weighs 450lbs so the HPDI at 505 aint no big deal. It is a very nice deal at $9,000. Leaves you extra bank for more underwear. The math says prop ridin 90 buster and fastest 16 Baby OB in history.

Greg Guimond
12-16-2013, 09:22 PM
Ok back to our regular programming.

59mph ..... check
64mph ..... check
68mph ..... check
76mph ..... check

84mph ..... priceless

Now I grant you I am still doing the research but the numbers will tell the story when (and if) I get there. In contact with Al Stoker now. We shall see.


Here is a side by side comparison picture of the 4 drives ............ not including the Super Strangler claimed 84mph drive from "lou" :smile:


1. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter 16 with 275hp does 59mph under perfect conditions --
A Ski Sporter would go 59mph with the 4 1/2" diameter Volvo AQ 290 lower unit bullet.

2. An "old style" '64-'68 Ski Sporter with the same 275hp motor and the mythical Volvo E-drive does 64mph under perfect conditions but chine walks getting there --
Decreasing the diameter of the bullet to 2 7/8" and lengthening it via the E-Drive immediately added 5mph in top speed to the same boat. The lower unit was still so deep having a skeg did not even matter.

3. An "old style" 1967 Ski Sporter O/B (hull #452 with the shorter inner strakes) with a 1998 Evinrude 175 wacker warmed over and making 210hp at 5700rpm does 68mph under perfect conditions with tabs --
The 1967 Donzi O/B hull #452 that Matty has a picture of runs an Evinrude with a bullet diameter of 4 1/8". Even with that big a bullet, it still added 4mph in top speed. What is more telling is the fact that the lower unit still HAD TO BE deep because the lower unit does not have low water pickups. Deeper drives = slower speeds.

4. A "new style" 1970-1978 OB 16 Baby (with the longer inner strakes) with a 2004 Mercury 225 making 225hp at 5400rpm does a video validated 74mph under perfect conditions with no trim tabs --
The new style OB 16 Baby looks to be running a Torquemaster lower unit. The bullet diameter on that particular drive is 4 1/4" so almost the same as the Evinrude on #452. Still it bumped the top speed up to 74 mph with only 25 extra horsepower. Why, because the drive was able to run higher due to low water pickups. The longer inner strakes are playing almost no role. In addition, this 16 OB Baby actually had many 76mph runs and one 77 if I remember correctly.

So you are now only 8mph away from Dr. Lou Benz's claim of 84mph on GPS in 1996 with the purported 1965 OB 1 Donzi 16 running a 1976 Evinrude Super Strangler race motor in Miami.

That is a big 8mph.

Greg Guimond
12-18-2013, 06:41 AM
this is from the current owner of 1967 hull #452 ...............

'When I first rigged it I went 68 mph with a sexy prop without really trying. I just run a basic OMC prop now in case I hit a coral head or whatever so the prop will just bend.
I've got a few pics on this computer but most are down on the island . When I get back down I'll dig them up."

Matty, did the current owner tell you what size prop he is running/ran for the 68mph on GPS? I'm assuming he is still running # 452?

woobs
12-18-2013, 07:48 AM
The inner strakes certainly play a role but that becomes less prevalent as the speeds increase. You are just not running enough hull in the water to matter as much.
Don't discount the importance of the strakes as their contribution is crucial. Think of it as a transition phase. Sure they're not needed when up on top but, you need them to get there. Once up, it's all about the motor/drive.

Greg Guimond
12-18-2013, 11:28 AM
I completely agree woobs that they help to get to a given top speed more quickly. In the instance of the 1967 #452 doing 68mph and the possiblity of the 1965 Gerry Walin boat doing 84mph as long as you have the room to air the hull out then the inner lifting strakes become less of a factor. I/O hulls also did not have the benefit of additional trim like a weedeater on the back would give you. I'm not even sure that the inner strakes would be in the water at 68mph.

The one thing that is very interesting about the 1964 to 1968 Ski Sporter 16's with the shorter inner strakes is that they were evidently built very lightweight. I wonder if anyone on the board ever weighed one of the early 16 I/O's with hull and deck only during a restoration. I know that I weighed my 1972 long strake 16 OB Baby and the hull and deck were 1107 lbs on a digital scale after it was constructed. My boat has a lot of extras built in structurally (adds weight) as you can see below because I was building for rougher water and big power.

Can a 64-68 Ski Sporter naked hull be lighter than 1107bs? I guess someone would have to had weighed one to really know.

woobs
12-18-2013, 02:08 PM
Mine is an early hull. It seems to be light. Apparently all the Ski Sporter hulls made by Shepherd (in St. Catharines, Ontario) maintained the light layup and structure of the early production boats. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for spring to find out what mine weighs.

As for the deck, it has already been recored and it looks to have a fairly stout new layup for added strength.

mattyboy
12-19-2013, 06:51 AM
a point of clarification . I have not determined the demarcation point for the longer strakes going into production for the skisporter. I have seen them on a 75 skisporter and I think the green 74 with the edrive pictured here in this thread also had them. so saying 1964-1968 is not quite accurate. I have not even verified that this production change took place it is very possible that some baby bottoms wound up on skisporter tops I just don't know at this point.

the skisporter left hand helm starboard lounge seating hull 452 is an outboard skisporter not a baby.

the baby which is a right hand helm port lounge seating outboard produced from 1970 to 1978 has the longer strakes

the later 16 classic outboards are rh helm but have the 16 classic 2+2 seating never saw the bottom of one but if they used the newer sweet 16 hull mold should have the shorter strakes like what is seen on crakerjack's white and blue 16 also picture earlier in this thread.


the first baby was completed in aug of 1970 so we need to document the strakes after that. anyone who sees this and has a 16 if they could measure their inner strake and report back with model( skisporter,classic,sweet,baby) and year and that measurement (end of the inner strake to the transom)it might help.


Greg

I will be in touch with the owner of 452 when he gets back down to the boat, I can ask those questions on prop then.

as far as weight the early boats pre 66 were lighter and there are stories of the bottoms failing. the 67 layup was heavier and so were later boats. If i remember correctly my 16 weighed just about 3500lbs on a trailer that weighed 1000lbs( the max for my tow vehicle at the time) figure around 1000lbs of that is ford and volvo I always towed empty or with less than a 1/4 of gas. so that would put the boat at about 1400-1500lbs.

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 07:27 AM
a point of clarification . the first OB baby was completed in aug of 1970 so we need to document the strakes after that. anyone who sees this and has a 16 if they could measure their inner strake and report back with model (skisporter,classic,sweet,baby) and year and that measurement (end of the inner strake to the transom) it might help.

Greg
I will be in touch with the owner of 452 when he gets back down to the boat, I can ask those questions on prop then.

Good point Matty on what year the inner strakes "went long". One of my 16 OB Baby hulls is a 1972 and has the long strakes but that does not mean that a late 1970 or 1971 could not have a different inner strake length. Getting the size and model prop that the current owner of 1967 #452 is running on his V4 Johnson will be very telling. I'm still at 30% that Dr. Lou Benz clocked 84mp in the 1965 16. Still doing some research from those who ran the Super Strangler outboards in the mid '70s.

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 12:52 PM
While the 68mph claimed speed numbers get crunched for the 1967 #452 and 84mph for the purported Gerry Walin 1965, here is the line-up (so far) of bread crumb carrying boating operatives. Each carries valuable historical information .....

Dr. Lou Benz

And a potential All Star bread crumb carrier not yet to be disclosed :idea:

Just Say N20
12-19-2013, 05:00 PM
Greg, you are right about the inner strakes being completely out of the water at high speeds. This shot of my hull (409) is running at 65 mph and flat. There was no proposing here, so the wetted surface is "real."

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 05:31 PM
Thanks Bill for posting that picture of your 1967 #409. That is a super angle and very conclusive. Question, I believe you are running an AQ290 with trim, is that accurate? If it is I would be interested in how many taps of the trim button it takes you until the hull takes that "set" for top speed. :)

woobs
12-19-2013, 05:51 PM
That is a great pic!!!

Just Say N20
12-19-2013, 06:45 PM
Trueser took the picture. It was the last run of 2013. 290 with trim.

The boat was running a Solas 23" @ 5,300 in the shot. The Solas is different from any prop I have run, in that it behaves like trim doesn't matter at all. Once you have a couple of ticks of trim, more does absolutely nothing to change the ride angle of the hull. You can trim it until the moon when the prop starts to slip, without gaining any additional speed. Trimming beyond where I was in the picture changes nothing.

I believe I will have a chance to try a 26" Ultra next season. It show carry more bow, if it acts like the 24" I had. It also should be about 3 mph faster. Next Spring we will know.

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 07:13 PM
Trueser took the picture, it was the last run of 2013. AQ290 with trim. The boat was running a Solas 23" @ 5,300 in that 65mph shot. I believe I will have a chance to try a 26" Ultra next season. It should carry more bow and also should be about 3 mph faster. Next Spring we will know.

That is great information and data Bill. Should be interesting next to see what Matty digs up from the owner of Ski Sporter #452 now that we understand the attack angle at 65mph and 5,300 RPM and the fact that the inner strakes are out of play at that attack angle. Thanks again. The hunt for Red October continues :nilly:

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 08:47 PM
Now that we have the inner lifting strake concern laid to rest as a non-issue, lets take a look at the issue of 16 hull weights from 1964 to 1996 .................



Matty, your data above points to "lou's" boat being a 1965 with the lighter layup?


Yes, the stated gross weight in '66 literature is 1500 lbs complete. In the '71 literature gross weight is 2150lbs for a Ski Sporter. The weight on a production OB Baby 16 is stated by the factory at 1050 lbs


My rare 1996 16 OB weighs 1500#, and is an all synthetic structure at this point. How they EVER arrived at 1050# using wood is beyond me.


Here are more 16 OB weights from electronic scales. My 1972 16 OB Baby Benchseat weighed in at 1107lbs o a digital scale with no gas tank


How did a 1971 Ski Sporter 16 with long inner strakes weigh 650lbs more than a 1966 Ski Sporter 16 with short inner strakes? Somethin aint right :confused:

Greg Guimond
12-19-2013, 11:13 PM
My 16ob weighs 1500#, and is all synthetic structure at this point, how they EVER arrived at 1050# using wood is beyond me...

Are you saying that you weighed the boat after it was restored and painted, fully fitted out, and with the Yamaha TRP 150 and the trailer and it weighed 1500lbs with no gas?

mattyboy
12-20-2013, 07:13 AM
Now that we have the inner lifting strake concern laid to rest as a non-issue, lets take a look at the issue of 16 hull weights from 1964 to 1996 .................











How did a 1971 Ski Sporter 16 with long inner strakes weigh 650lbs more than a 1966 Ski Sporter 16 with short inner strakes? Somethin aint right :confused:


do we have proof of a 71 skisporter with longer strakes??

they put a LOT LESS Glass in the earlier ones that's why the bottoms failed on some. like the motor working it's way out thru the bottom

what weighs more a light layup schedule with balsa core or a solid glass layup made thick enough to be strong but not to have coring? remember they weren't vacuum bagging ,infusing or sealing any of the wood in the early days

IMO that's why you see so many 67 and newer 16 remaining and not so many of the 300 or so made before 67. the older boats that weren't pampered or stored the maint or upkeep was too costly and they were scrapped or abandoned over the years. They were not rare or sort after and newer ones were available so they rotted away.

Greg Guimond
12-20-2013, 07:40 AM
My 1996 OB 16 completely rigged hull with battery, steering, cushions, seats, stereo, cables, hoses, the works, everything but without the engine or fuel was exactly 1500#


they put a LOT LESS Glass in the earlier 16's that's why the bottoms failed on some. what weighs more a light layup schedule with balsa core or a solid glass layup made thick enough to be strong but not to have coring?

My 1972 16 OB weighed 1107 lbs naked (not even the empty gas tank yet installed) on a digital scale. I had it layed up a little on the heavy side and it has a lot of structural add-ons which also added a little weight.
Do you have a guess on how many pounds less a light layup 1964-1968 naked 16 hull might weigh?

Greg Guimond
12-20-2013, 09:16 AM
Maybe this is of some use. My 16 OB deck only weighed 343lbs on the scale


Above is a members 1972 stock 16 OB Baby "deck only" that was weighed as it was coming off the hull for restoration. It was 343 pounds. My 16 OB Baby deck weighed 409 pounds after we converted it to a Bench Seat Rumbler. We removed the L seating and just kept the one section so that should be a wash with respect to weight. It was fully recored up front and then faired, primed and weighed. Mine is 66lbs heavier than stock which is a big percentage increase.

Greg Guimond
12-21-2013, 09:24 AM
Mine is an early hull. It seems to be light.


They put a LOT LESS Glass in the earlier ones that's why the bottoms failed on some. like the motor working it's way out thru the bottom.


My 1972 16 OB weighed 1107 lbs naked (not even the empty gas tank yet installed) on a digital scale. I had it layed up a little on the heavy side and it has a lot of structural add-ons which also added a little weight.

Still looking into the weight of both the 1965 Gerry Walin boat and the 1967 #452 boat. The factory spec sheets for the 16 OB Baby calls out a weight of 1050lbs. My boat weighs in at 1107lbs. I'm starting to think that when the factory used 1050lbs that was was with the fuel tank and all the brightwork and rub rail installed. 1050lbs would not have included the gauges, rigging or interior because as Matty and others have pointed out, most of the long strake OB Baby's left the Donzi factory as blanks and were then rigged by the selling dealer. If you use 1050lbs to start, the 1964-1968 Ski Sporters would have been less weight based on less glass. I'm thinking (based on woobs comment) that 50lbs less would not be unreasonable.

So the 1965 and 1967 would/could have weighed 1000# with gas tank and all brightwork installed?

mattyboy
12-21-2013, 09:29 AM
Greg my point is the only thing that was consistent from the factory over the years was their inconsistency . Methods and materials changed over the years even on the same model. My benchseat is lighter than Pearson's ultimate. the method used on his BB v-drive was a fully balsa cored hull and deck.
The method used on my SB volvo is a fully foam core deck and no hull coring. I would think the factory was thinking the SB power would not perform very well pushing around a fully cored boat. I would also say that in it's current state the ultimate is very much a heavier boat now then it was when it left the factory. A fully infused cored hull and deck the boat is SOLID.

again it will be very hard to find a true avg as there are too many variants: material ,methods , deck config ,flotation foam, tank size to name a few.

Greg Guimond
12-21-2013, 09:32 AM
Do you think 1000 pounds for #452 is a reasonable weight?

mattyboy
12-21-2013, 09:41 AM
Still looking into the weight of both the 1965 Gerry Walin boat and the 1967 #452 boat. The factory spec sheets for the 16 OB Baby calls out a weight of 1050lbs. My boat weighs in at 1107lbs. I'm starting to think that when the factory used 1050lbs that was was with the fuel tank and all the brightwork and rub rail installed. 1050lbs would not have included the gauges, rigging or interior because as Matty and others have pointed out, most of the long strake OB Baby's left the Donzi factory as blanks and were then rigged by the selling dealer. If you use 1050lbs to start, the 1964-1968 Ski Sporters would have been less weight based on less glass. I'm thinking (based on woobs comment) that 150lbs less would not be unreasonable.

So the 1965 and 1967 would/could have weighed 1000# with gas tank and all brightwork installed?


just as a guess if you look at the factory literature they say gross weight which I think is the same as dry weight which is rigged but no fluids or gear

a baby 1050lbs would be complete less motor and the skisporter at 2150 lbs would be basically the same hull weight with the added 1000 or so pounds of motor and drive, the volvo smalblock was roughly 1000 lbs give or take a few lbs

Greg Guimond
12-21-2013, 10:59 AM
Some more information on 16 weights from back in 2002 .............


I remember a while back you inquiring about the weight of the 16, as was I. The original advertisements list the gross weight at 1500, but current Donzi weight is close to 2500. I have in my possesion 3 Donzi brochures: 16 Classic (1995) 30th Anniversary (1995) and a 1992 "SWEET 16" Broshure. All 3 ads have the weight at 1845 and MAX HP listed at 205 (both 1995 ads).

Only the 1992 list all of the avail engines:
4.3 175 HP
5.0 185 HP
4.3 H.O. 205 HP :D

Assuming the 5.0 is the heaviest, I would suspect the 1845 is for the V6 models.

I have a 1994 4.3 HO, I'm convinced the weight is 1845lbs, given it was that in 1992(OMC) and 1995 (same merc engines).

I have no information to explain the Donzi specs for 2002.
From Donzimarine.com - Classic series:
16 2500 :(
18 2700
22 3400

I find it hard to beleive that a 18 weighs only 200 pounds more, perhaps the 16 weight is wrong.
Another theory, the 16 with a V8, trim tabs, windsheild and the newer styled upgraded interiors would add a few hundred pounds over the v6 no trim tabs (ok there not that heavy but I'm working this hard) sans windshield.

What I can verify is that from at least 1992-1995 the listed weight (most likely standard power - V6) is 1845.

Greg Guimond
12-21-2013, 05:24 PM
Greg, you are right about the inner strakes being completely out of the water at high speeds. This shot of my 1967 hull (409) is running at 65 mph and flat. There was no proposing here, so the wetted surface is "real."

So Bill's experience shows that the need for longer inner strakes to go fast is not true. Once you are above 60mph they are not even in the water on the early 16 Ski Sporter's.



The early ski sporter are listed at approx 1500lbs gross weight. if they used the standard 110hp volvo 4cyl with aq200 drive, complete its 500 lbs. yes then the 1000 -1050 weight of the hull without power holds true

Woobs will weigh his early 16 Ski Sporter in the Spring for an exact # but the 1964-1968 Ski Sporter's are now shown to weigh a maximum of 1,000 lbs with tank and brightwork installed. I say woobs' scales at 900lbs

Greg Guimond
12-21-2013, 10:29 PM
So can me, myself and I make sense of Gerry Walin's purported 1965 Donzi "16 OB1" doing 84mph with a Super Strangler in Miami Bay in 1996? 30% likelihood just went up to 40% in my book.

1. We know that the short inner strakes did not prohibit the needed lift to achieve high speeds. They are not in the water and affecting wetted surface at proper attack angles.
2. We know that a 1964-1968 Ski Sporter 16 would weigh a maximum of 1,000lbs with tank and chrome. Weight matters
3. We now have four examples of how lower unit shape and drag and depth affects speeds ..... 59 - 64 - 68 - 76mph

woobs
12-22-2013, 12:17 AM
I'm sorry Greg, I still just don't buy it.

If you are citing Bills 65mph without aid of inner strakes you must account for the 400 HP he has pushing it. At 65 mph yes, the hull is out of the water but, there's nothing to ride on and we agreed very early (post # 405) this was possible... but only with tremendous power (which Bills boat in the picture has).

So, you don't have 400+ hp with the wacker on the backer. I suppose you can claim some speed back with a reduced weight vs. the car engine. But I believe you still need an assist to get the hull aired out. It's either power or finesse... (strakes being finesse). The X and the trim are more finesse.

Imho if the motor is running out of grunt before the hull is completely aired, you still have a larger wetted surface in play which causes the handling issues. If you have the power to push through this stage quickly there is no issue. Once aired the power of the engine and the drag of the drive are all you have to carry the hull.

In any case saying the strakes are not necessary on the o/b is like saying the space shuttle did not need SRBs. Sure, at some point that's true but not in the early phase. The 400 HP car motor is like the Saturn 5 at take off... no external SRBs there.... but look at the power it had.

I believe the slick lower unit would really come into play once the hull is aired and that it probably takes less power to push it along once it is aired (assuming there is enough powewr to keep it there). The question boils down to how much power it takes to push through the phase from the point the inner strakes are no longer assisting to the point of being fully aired.

I personally think that's a big number (which is less than 400HP) but I think it's more than the Super Strangler puts out. As far as the 84mph goes....I say a generous 15% :) (and I'd love to see the prop that did it)

Greg Guimond
12-22-2013, 12:42 AM
Bill actually has 430hp @ 5,300, and 490ft lbs @ 4,300. I'll let him comment on your thoughts as he was driving the 16 on the day that picture was taken.

mattyboy
12-22-2013, 07:33 AM
in regards to weight as I have mentioned things vary, Woobs' project may not be a good benchmark as it has had work done to it.


From what I have seen with released weights the factory estimated a 16 hull complete less drive train and fluids at 1000 lbs then added the 495lbs for the 110 hp volvo drive train, for the published 1500 lbs approx. gross weight.

again the lower foot and X are very key. Rootsy with just a hair more HP and a slick alpha ss was 16 mph faster than bill's 16 both had trim both had similar hulls and strake configuration. Now look at my 16 with 120 less HP and some added weight for old exhaust no trim ran at its best 62 just 3 mph slower than Bill only thing I had different was the nosecone. we know a 16 with strong 6 cyl power runs well and almost the same speeds as a v8 but seem to handle better with the lack of weight. Then add to that that we have seen a true baby with modern power run low 70's.

I feel that the 68 number on the experimental hull with the advantages of a modern OB setup and a totally unique weight distribution is very well possible and more likely than not.

the 84 number with supposed mid 60's technology on an OB I find hard to believe.

My biggest hangup is prop technology at the time. I spent 7 years trying to find the right prop to get the 16 hull to perform. the state of the art custom spinelli I had was great to about 53 that became a hot mess. the choppers and cleavers all had some issue. the ultra was good but again at around 55 or so it became a handful. then the solas came around in the 00's and i could run to the pegs all the time 60 on a daily basis. To think a boat setup in the mid 1960's by a racer who died in the mid 1970's is running mid 80's in 1996??????



I am waiting to see how the increased bow lift of the ultra will react on Bill's setup. also how the 15% slip of the ultra will effect his numbers the solas is running single digits for slip.

Greg Guimond
12-22-2013, 08:22 AM
again the lower foot and X are very key. Rootsy with just a hair more HP and a slick alpha ss was 16 mph faster than bill's 16 both had trim both had similar hulls and strake configuration. I feel that the 68 number on the experimental hull with the advantages of a modern OB setup and a totally unique weight distribution is very well possible and more likely than not. the 84 number with supposed mid 60's technology on an OB I find hard to believe.

Excellent observation on the lower foot Matty. I am 100% confident on the 68mph and now up to 40% from 30% on the 84mph. I am putting together some details on the foot and X that should take me to 50% or better. As far as props, to me that is not much of an issue, the OMC race guys were developing some of the most unique props around in the mid '70s for that Super Strangler motor. They had access to anything they needed and when they would/could have customized as needed. Remember too that Walin set the world O/B speed record.