16 OB Baby Owners - How Many Are Left? [Archive] - Page 5

woobs

01-31-2014, 09:51 AM

:screwy: Wrong again! That's why it's a car motor, it blows up at WOT, unlike a race 2 stroke (or any 2 stroke really) that can run for a looooooong time at WOT. As to what work the Super Strangler could do at 7,000rpm, do you really think that a motor that won races year after year against Merc was designed to NOT produce its best results and best torque up top? I'll post the dyno sheet for my 2 stroke if I can dig it up.

I can't believe you've sucked me into this discussion again!!!!!

We are talking about load.

Look at your dyno sheets. Are the Max HP and max torque at the same rpm? are they close?
Torque is for down low, and HP is up top.

A 99.6 cuin motor turning 7,000 will produce a certain amount of power. The numbers for a SS with 1:65:1 at 7,200 swinging a 23" prop with 8% slip is 85Mph. This is the theoretical maximum with no provision for the amount of work required for the type of boat. In other words a "potato chip". This is what it was designed to do. Now turn the potato chip into a potato. It aint gunna run 7,000 rpm. It's gunna strain to push the weight and it was not made to do it.

The 183 cuin Merc was made to push the potato. Its not a good comparison. It's apples /oranges as I said hundreds of posts ago.

Oh, if you think 2 strokes don't blow up and they run all day...you should look at the snowmobile industry. I've blown up plenty of 2 strokes just by using the perfect jet in the morning, that was too lean in the afternoon. :)

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 10:00 AM

A 99.6 cuin motor turning 7,000 will produce a certain amount of power. The numbers for a SS with 1:65:1 at 7,200 swinging a 23" prop with 8% slip is 85Mph.

This is a big piece (not the only) of your argument that it can't happen? Those numbers show it is well within the realm of reality. Add to the equation the weight difference (still waiting on that from you) and the lower unit drag and you are at 80% probable, by your own math. Then add to that Dr. Lou was VERY specific in how he hit 84. Then add Duckhunter's comment about GPS being valid in 1996 in that region. Then add how Volvo E-drives produce an instant +6mph. Then add how Rootsy made a very specific decision to use an OB lower unit instead of the standard I/O Alpha SS.

What do you think on the couple of hundred lbs?

woobs

01-31-2014, 10:28 AM

Add to the equation the weight difference (still waiting on that from you) What do you think on the couple of hundred lbs?

Greg, clearly you are warped. You certainly twist things and then cloud them.... and adding all kinds of distraction and then coming back to old nonsense. By your reasoning I'm going to rewire a trolling motor to turn 10,000 rpm and hit 100mph. why? because it has no drag.... really!

You can't compare weight differences in different set ups. Also the context is important. The difference between 800 lbs and 1000 lbs may not be much for a hydro with the SS. The difference between 1600 lbs and 1800 lbs could be much different. But, at least you can compare them.

You can't compare 200lbs on one set up with 200lbs on a completely different set up. Well you can try but it means nothing.

There is NO constant for what 200 lbs looks like for all boats. Apples and oranges.

What you can say is: The amount of work required to push a similar hull design in the 1,700lb range with a +/- of 100 lbs difference will be negligiable.

I believe you when you say the SS turns 7,000 rpm. It was designed to. It was also designed to push light race boats. I don't believe it'll turn 7,000 rpm pushing a heavy (by comparison) production boat. Can a light hydro turn 85mph with a SS... I sure hope so.

There's data as to how much GPS was inaccurate in 1996. You chose to ignore this based on one man's opinion (not backed up). But, I'll even say 84 was 84...Y'know it's harder for you to make your case that way.

We know less drag = more speed. But, Volvo E's and Alpha SS' have no actual bearing on this discussion. Stop pretending they do. Apples and Oranges again.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 10:50 AM

woobs, clearly you are warped.

What matters in this discussion is that one Donzi 16 did 77.7mph and is heavier than another Donzi 16 (btw NOT production) by a small but important amount. You have to put a mph number on that, which you still have chosen not to do. When discussing minutia in Missouri, you can't just say "negligible".

What also matters is that the boat that did 77.7 mph had one lower unit that has more parasitic drag then that of the Super Strangler by all accounts. This particular fact is more numerically important than a couple of hundred lbs.

How much do you figure the couple of hundred lbs is worth. Once you give me a rough cut on that, I'll move onto the drag issue for the two lower units.

It's ok to have these chats btw, I like your logical approach. I just don't agree with all of it.

woobs

01-31-2014, 10:55 AM

Of course it's down to minutia. It's down to 7mph.

Uhm...no, it's not down to 7mph. We still have not shown that a 200Hp (or less) SS can even match the 77Mph posted by the Merc, let alone the miracle 84mph.

By my count we are at low 70`s for the SS. You need well over 10mph.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 11:02 AM

Uhm...no, it's not down to 7mph. We still have not shown that a 200Hp (or less) SS can even match the 77Mph posted by the Merc, let alone the miracle 84mph. By my count we are at low 70`s for the SS. You need well over 10mph.

You are correct, I neglected to mention the 25hp, sorry bout that. So the minutia is down +25hp AND +7mph. How much is the extra couple of hundred lbs worth do you think?

woobs

01-31-2014, 11:32 AM

How much is the extra couple of hundred lbs worth do you think?

I'm sorry Greg, I really can't quantify that. Suffice it to say I don't think it's very much.

Think of it like I mentioned.
The amount of work required to push a 1700lb hull (+/- 100lbs) at a certain speed.
It's negligible.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 11:51 AM

:hangum:

duckhunter

01-31-2014, 11:54 AM

Greg, clearly you are warped. You certainly twist things and then cloud them.... and adding all kinds of distraction and then coming back to old nonsense. By your reasoning I'm going to rewire a trolling motor to turn 10,000 rpm and hit 100mph. why? because it has no drag.... really!

You can't compare weight differences in different set ups. Also the context is important. The difference between 800 lbs and 1000 lbs may not be much for a hydro with the SS. The difference between 1600 lbs and 1800 lbs could be much different. But, at least you can compare them.

You can't compare 200lbs on one set up with 200lbs on a completely different set up. Well you can try but it means nothing.

There is NO constant for what 200 lbs looks like for all boats. Apples and oranges.

What you can say is: The amount of work required to push a similar hull design in the 1,700lb range with a +/- of 100 lbs difference will be negligiable.

I believe you when you say the SS turns 7,000 rpm. It was designed to. It was also designed to push light race boats. I don't believe it'll turn 7,000 rpm pushing a heavy (by comparison) production boat. Can a light hydro turn 85mph with a SS... I sure hope so.

There's data as to how much GPS was inaccurate in 1996. You chose to ignore this based on one man's opinion (not backed up). But, I'll even say 84 was 84...Y'know it's harder for you to make your case that way.

We know less drag = more speed. But, Volvo E's and Alpha SS' have no actual bearing on this discussion. Stop pretending they do. Apples and Oranges again.

I was going to let this thing run it's course until someone actually sourced a SS to try, but a couple of comments:

Agree with the discussion of high rpm motors, CID, powerband, torque, etc. It's like bolting a 14k rpm 700hp Indy motor into an F350 and trying to tote a horse trailer. Not gonna work out so well.

As far as the GPS goes, I did back up why it would be relatively accurate in a speed calculation even in 1996, and why inherent position inaccuracies back then did not necessarily translate to speed inaccuracies. Take it FWIW as I'm just a random guy on the interweb, but this topic is firmly in my wheelhouse.

Getting mid-80s out of 200hp is a pretty good feat even in a purpose-built potato chip, much less in a deep-v production boat. I don't care about +/- 200#, strake length, lower unit, prop, x-dim, etc. I just don't think it's happening in a Donzi 16. No amount of discussion or theory will change my mind. Show me.

woobs

01-31-2014, 12:07 PM

See in RED.

woobs, clearly you are warped. No, I dont change what you say and use it out of context, ignore key elements and confuse/cloud the issue with other irrelivant issues... I state my own case.

What matters in this discussion is that one Donzi 16 did 77.7mph and is heavier than another Donzi 16 (btw NOT production) by a small but important amount. Actually weight is only important in the context of the small 99.6 cuin v4 ability to push a heavy hull as opposed to the light hulls it was designed to. You have to put a mph number on that, which you still have chosen not to do. When discussing minutia in Missouri, you can't just say "negligible". Again, no I don't need a number on the difference in weight because the motors have different Hp and torque curves and are not comparible as we don't have the data.Apples and oranges. Anything else in conjecture. You chose this comparison because the two boats were similar.... own it. They're similar.

What also matters is that the boat that did 77.7 mph had one lower unit that has more parasitic drag then that of the Super Strangler by all accounts. This particular fact is more numerically important than a couple of hundred lbs. Yes, we agree the Merc cross section will produce more parasitic drag. How much? You cant qualify this. AND as the Merc was also designed to cut through water it is not as if it is a square appendage devoid of any drag reducuing design qualities. I believe you over estimate the overall value of the difference here.

How much do you figure the couple of hundred lbs is worth. Once you give me a rough cut on that, I'll move onto the drag issue for the two lower units. Again, this cannot be quantified. Remember, weight is a big issue in acceleration. not so much at a constant speed. Once you are at speed it's about drag. So, I'll say statistically, it makes no significant difference. But, that's just conjecture.

Have you ever seen a person pull an 80,000 lb tractor trailer with a rope? Now, have you seen them lift one?

It's ok to have these chats btw, I like your logical approach. Not if we can't move on and we continue to rehash the same stuff. I just don't agree with all of it.I gather that.

woobs

01-31-2014, 12:11 PM

Greg, I'd really rather see your progress on "Surface Tension"... I'm lovin' that build.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 12:33 PM

woobs, all that red ink is interesting but does not change a few simple things........

1975 16 OB Baby - 2004 Mercury 225 and TM L/U - 77.7mph
1965 16 Ski Sporter Purported OB#1 - 1975 Evinrude Super Strangler Race 200 and Clubfoot L/U - 84mph claimed. I'm at 80% probability because I believe what Lou said

1975 16 OB - Heavier overall than 1965 16 OB ---- By how many lbs?
1975 16 OB - Motor's L/U is how many inches below the keel line ---- Do you know? No
1975 16 OB - Motor's L/U is significantly bulkier ---- Do you even have the bullets diameter of each? No

None of these three things are "re-hashed". Institutional thinking can getcha sometimes. You just have not provided the answers to all three because we (both you and I) have just arrived here as the thread has bantered about. Own your position and provide answers. The three questions are pretty straightforward.

:salute:

Just Say N20

01-31-2014, 12:47 PM

The weight thing is important to a degree. Since we are tossing around all kinds of information in an apples/oranges kind of way, I will toss this out there. It exemplifies a couple of points that have been made.

Cubic inches produce torque. Torque does work. I like Duckhunter's analogy

My 16 has just under 500 ft lbs of torque at 4,300 rpms where it begins to fall off. That is a decent torque figure to put in a 16' boat. That is why adding about 630 lbs of passengers to my 16 cost me less than 1 mph at WOT. It would seem to suggest that weight was not the significant factor determining the top speed of my boat. 630 lbs would seem significant enough to increase the wetted running surface enough to scrub off more than 1 mph. However, it didn't.

Part of the reason it didn't I would suppose is my engine has enough torque to get the job done. I feel pretty confident that if my 65.2 mph top speed had been achieved with a 99 cubic inch engine that developed peak hp at 7,000 rpms, and I added 630 lbs to the boat, it would have lost a lot more top speed, assuming it would have even been able to plane off. High hp/high rpm buzzy engines have pretty much nothing to work with at lower rpms.

I contend that the deep-V running surface, and much greater than Potato-chip-boat weight of a 16 already put it out of the "comfort zone" for the Super Strangler V4 Johnrude, in much the same way Duckhunter's 14,000 rpm, 700 hp Indy engine in a horse trailer pulling F350 truck wouldn't work.

A larger displacement outboard, with more torque available could push a Donzi 16 to mid-70s. But as has also been pointed out, beyond a certain speed, additional mph become exponentially harder to achieve. With a Donzi 16, getting 7 more mph when moving from 77 to 84 is well into that range.

Is lower unit drag important? Absolutely! I'm pretty certain that is THE significant factor limiting the top speed of my boat. However, remember that Younger's 16 (yes I know it has a car engine, but my boat shows the torque produced by a car engine is at least enough to compensate for the added weight), ran in the mid-80s with a Blackhawk drive.

I don't care how efficient the SS lower was, it can't be as slippery as a surfacing drive, which effectively has no drag. Younger's drive was a little low, because at speed it would start riding on the lower surface of the gear housing, forcing the bow down, creating some very scary handling issues. But even at that point, the only drag from his drive was the skeg and prop blades. And his boat ran mid-80s.

This is why I just don't see a Donzi 16 running 84 with a 99 CI engine.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 12:50 PM

Greg, I'd really rather see your progress on "Surface Tension"... I'm lovin' that build.

It's a rumor. It doesn't exist. There's no video tape. Where's the polaroid. Where's Osiris? Just bustin, actually the only thing for sure is how slooooow that bugger is.

woobs

01-31-2014, 01:08 PM

None of these three things are "re-hashed".

I'm not supporting an 84 Mph claim. You are so, you need to prove it.
I never purported to provide answers for all your questions. I have been pointing out out why your arguments/comparisons & conclusions do not hold water so to speak.

Not re-hashed...really?

225Hp 16 at 77mph. Stipulated (until proven otherwise)...as discussed
65 16 - 84 mph claimed (discussed). You believe 80% (discussed)
16 ob heavier - irrelivent (as discussed)
16 ob foot set up - irrelivent to discussion as proof. Suffice it to say it's optimum (as discussed)
16 ob foot more drag - discussed, and agreed several times. How much? Nobody knows without data and again, discussed. And I add that it's not 80Hp worth of drag reduction....which was also discussed but stated several ways.

Do you have anything new? Let's move on.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 01:28 PM

225Hp 16 at 77mph. Stipulated (until proven otherwise)...as discussed wrong, 77.7 has been proven

65 16 - 84 mph claimed (discussed). You believe 80% (discussed) wrong, my 80% upgrade was today lol

16 ob heavier - irrelivent (as discussed) wrong, weight is totally relevant

16 ob foot set up - irrelivent to discussion as proof. Suffice it to say it's optimum (as discussed) wrong, if the "foot" was 100% identical but one was 1" higher to the keel what does that do to top speed? In OB's 98% of the time it makes it go faster. I just don't get optimum. Your pushing a piece of metal through water. The less metal in the water the faster you go, no?

16 ob foot more drag - discussed, and agreed several times. How much? Nobody knows without data and again, discussed. And I add that it's not 80Hp worth of drag reduction....which was also discussed but stated several ways. Absolutely wrong but I understand that you want science whereas I'm using a practical interpretation. Do you know the diameter of either of the two gear case bullets being discussed as a starter? You'll want to start with that.

I believe your zero out of 5 so far. I may be missing something though.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 01:35 PM

blah, blah blah ...........where's the video? :biggrin.:

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 01:53 PM

You really are low on sleep lol. I've said from the start that there was no way to verify Dr. Lou's claims, just that I thought he was telling the truth about the boat and the speed based on the way he presented both on two separate occasions, actually in two separate years. I've been pretty consistent defending him. You, however claimed a week ago you had a video in hand that blew apart the board members 77.7mph claim with a stock Merc 225 and TM but now you can't find it. This was after you said "hell no there is no way that guy clocked 77". Pleeeeeez.

Come on, you gotta have more for me than that amigo :sombrero: I don't have the video, and I'd like to see it because it will be telling for sure. Stop hiding it :smile:

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 02:05 PM

Is lower unit drag important? Absolutely! I'm pretty certain that is THE significant factor limiting the top speed of my boat. However, remember that Younger's 16 (yes I know it has a car engine, but my boat shows the torque produced by a car engine is at least enough to compensate for the added weight), ran in the mid-80s with a Blackhawk drive.

I don't care how efficient the SS lower was, it can't be as slippery as a surfacing drive, which effectively has no drag. Younger's drive was a little low, because at speed it would start riding on the lower surface of the gear housing, forcing the bow down, creating some very scary handling issues. But even at that point, the only drag from his drive was the skeg and prop blades. And his boat ran mid-80s.

This is why I just don't see a Donzi 16 running 84 with a 99 CI engine.

Bill, these are good observations. You not only own a 16 but have some running time with wackers over the years. Your getting me to pondering the Blackhawk comment. The caveat here is I do not know anything about Youngers boat so bear with me. If Rootsy did 81 with his 16 and 420ish ponies, did Younger have similar horsepower to the Roots Rocket?

woobs

01-31-2014, 02:23 PM

I believe your zero out of 5 so far. Well, these are your beliefs...but we were talking about re-hashing the same thing over and over. I may be missing something though You mean you are still missing something.... :)

That's why I was out.... and yet, I still got sucked in again today.

5 items, 3 questions, and all previously discussed... some, even today!!!... and you don't admit it it's been re-hashed. How would anyone convince you of anything. This is pointless.

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 03:08 PM

Rehash, Smoked Hash, Hash Browns. Opting out is aok but not until you really think about some simple questions. I'll even narrow it down to four items for you............

1. 225Hp 16 at 77mph. Stipulated (until proven otherwise)... Wrong, 77.7 has been proven. There is the owners post, then there are two photos of his GPS

2. 16 ob heavier - irrelivent ... Wrong, weight is totally relevant for a high strung wacker. That is why there are so many "potatoe chip" hull comments in this thread

3. 16 ob foot set up - irrelivent to discussion as proof..... wrong, this is why wackers use jack plates and why 3" higher Alpha SS drives are so sought after for I/Os. Higher to the keel line means faster. Your pushing a piece of metal through water, right? The less metal in the water the faster you go, no? Answer please.

4. 16 ob foot more drag - discussed, and agreed several times. How much? Nobody knows without data. Practically, you can forget the need for exact drag data. Diameter of Merc foot vs Diameter of Super Strangler foot

Just answer this simple request, in his hunt for 81mph, what "foot" did Rootsy choose to use on his 16 and why?

I have tested 18's with a 2" raised X-dimension and gained 4 mph. Also tested one 18 with a 3" raised X-dimension and gained 5 1/2 mph. over stock. In each case I was able to go up 1 prop size, Gained 300 rpm on the 2" and 450 rpm on the 3" I also noted that time to plane was virtually un-affected

Greg Guimond

01-31-2014, 03:22 PM

Where's Ghost with a retort :biggrin.:

woobs

01-31-2014, 03:35 PM

Pointless.

Ghost

01-31-2014, 03:48 PM

One thing that I think bears mentioning (though maybe this was a bad place for it, given the repeal of the laws of physics in this thread): torque is an important parameter for the function of a boat. But HP, not torque, is the real driver when it comes to top speed. Torque is plenty important in the overall PRACTICALITY of a boat's performance, however. Most have seen Indy cars with tons of power that can barely get off the line from a standing start. They'll go all the way to 230+ if you can get them from 0-4 mph to begin with. Sometimes they need a push. In a boat this is an even bigger deal, in part because not many boats can change gears. I imagine one might be able to tweak a boatsuch that it gained top sped but no longer could attain it without some external assist to get up on plane.

Also, worth noting that work and energy are interchangeable. To illustrate the significance of this, consider that a fuel tank is a reservoir of stored energy, which is equivalent to a reservoir of stored work. I can empty a 50 gallon tank with a 9.9 outboard or an HP 525. What's different is the RATE at which work is done (POWER), which is mathematically the same as the rate at which energy is unlocked from the fuel. It takes a lot longer to empty it with the 9.9. A top-fuel dragster illustrates this well. So, while there are some real-world limits to the theory at the relative extremes, HP is what matters and the rest is just proper gearing, whether that be gears, prop pitch, whatever. Again, real-world limits apply to the practicality, but in a one-time non-endurance sprint, POWER, not torque, is what matters most. You need to manage the real-world constraints, but beyond that, there's no substitute for power if one is trying to increase speed.

Anyhow, with some of the discussion of torque versus displacement versus HP, thought it was worth mentioning. Of course, here in La-La-Land, physics need not apply anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Two interesting things that I've meant to lob in recently got mentioned, and kudos to folks for adding those to the mix. First, the sensitivity to weight means more to the 99 cubic inch OB than to N20's 16. (Which suggests that Dr. Lou's email about going back out with another passenger and doing 84 again is somewhere between poorly worded and utter nonsense.) Second, given the Super Strangler was already a HiPo motor producing what, almost 2HP per cubic inch, I doubt there was much room to take it further up from the 180-185 HP at which it supposedly dyno'd. Getting an extra 10% would be VERY hard. Getting an extra 25% would be brutally hard. And to do so, would we expect it'd have a torque curve that would even get the boat out of the hole? Not an expert on 2 or 4-stroke power, but seems like it'd be REALLY tough.

My best seat-of-the-pants math says the march from Greg's 40% belief to 80% belief is correlated only to the passage of time and post count. :)

EDIT: as to "pointless," Woobs, you are right for sure. A couple of us keep getting suckered into thinking sense will overcome superstition. Maybe we should form a support group.

Just Say N20

01-31-2014, 04:13 PM

Greg,

I "think" Younger had around 400 hp in his boat, but I don't know that I ever heard a specific number, or any torque information.

I do remember him saying that he was never able to get a "full potential" top speed out of the boat because the handling became too dangerous when the Blackhawk gear case started planing, which lifted the transom, forcing the bow down.

I seem to remember MOP saying that he should have raised his X-dimension about 2" to achieve maximum potential. That being more of a project than Younger apparently wanted to undertake, it was never done. He sold it and bought a Wacker powered tunnel. An Eliminator if memory serves (which is becoming less and less dependable).

I'm certainly no expert on Rootsy's boat, but I have heard both that he had an Alpha SS, and/or that he used the lower from an outboard, but I don't know which is true. I also believe his engine wasn't quite as strong as mine, which makes it all the most significant that it ran 15 mph faster with less power.

duckhunter

01-31-2014, 07:20 PM

He sold it and bought a Wacker powered tunnel. An Eliminator if memory serves (which is becoming less and less dependable).

Now THERE'S a boat that will most likely run 84 with a 200hp whacker!

yummy, hash browns, well done, with BACON

Yup, at least we're eating and drinking well out here in the hinterlands of MO.

Another quick anecdote to illustrate the torque curve concept... I've got a 55cc Jonsered pro chainsaw. Factory stock it is a stout 3.5hp and 12,500rpm. Did a woods port, opened up the muffler, lost the rev limiter, turned up the fuel, etc. It will turn 13,800rpm in it's current configuration and running rich, probably close to 4hp. That's 1.2hp per cubic inch, and it sounds like a top fuel dragster idling. Pretty darn high strung. It will turn a low profile 16" chain like a monster - she just sings at >10,000rpm even buried in wood. Put a 3/8" 20" bar and chain on there and it's a whole different ballgame. Feels sluggish, bogs down in the cut, etc. It's like overpropping a boat. Or trying to push a heavy deep-v boat with a high strung small inch outboard...

Still enjoying the discussion, but I gotta say as soon as it warms up enough to get on the river my ass is outta here until someone does a proof-of-concept demo!

mattyboy

02-01-2014, 10:30 AM

this egg beater was clocked at 49 mph just 35 mph less than lou

Ed Donnelly

02-01-2014, 11:49 AM

Now THERE'S a boat that will most likely run 84 with a 200hp whacker!

Yup, at least we're eating and drinking well out here in the hinterlands of MO.

Another quick anecdote to illustrate the torque curve concept... I've got a 55cc Jonsered pro chainsaw. Factory stock it is a stout 3.5hp and 12,500rpm. Did a woods port, opened up the muffler, lost the rev limiter, turned up the fuel, etc. It will turn 13,800rpm in it's current configuration and running rich, probably close to 4hp. That's 1.2hp per cubic inch, and it sounds like a top fuel dragster idling. Pretty darn high strung. It will turn a low profile 16" chain like a monster - she just sings at >10,000rpm even buried in wood. Put a 3/8" 20" bar and chain on there and it's a whole different ballgame. Feels sluggish, bogs down in the cut, etc. It's like overpropping a boat. Or trying to push a heavy deep-v boat with a high strung small inch outboard...

Still enjoying the discussion, but I gotta say as soon as it warms up enough to get on the river my ass is outta here until someone does a proof-of-concept demo!

Man if I lived in Alabama I would be boating 12 months of the year
If I could chop through the 4' of ice here I would be boating. L.O.L. Ed

Greg Guimond

02-01-2014, 06:51 PM

If Walin and Lou were going for top speed, with no concern about how long it takes to get there, then they'd want the SS to be set up to run exactly at max hp rpm. Assume they were and here are three points to consider.

First, assuming both the 200 hp and 225 hp wackers have about the same working RPM range, and are in their power band and beneath their rev limiters, the 225 should be able to turn a higher pitch prop at the same RPM as the 200 hp motor. And, still making the above assumption if they both had the same pitch prop on them, the Merc 225 should be able to reach that 5750 WOT RPM's talked about more quickly than the 200. So, again assuming the same useful RPM range and powerbands, the higher horsepower motor would reach some predetermined RPM quicker than the lower hp motor if they were running the same size prop. The problem with this however is that the Super Strangler is 7200RPM WOT while the Merc is 5750RPM. As a purpose built race motor you can be 100% assured that the Super Strangler made it’s best horsepower up top. My point and I think ghost’s (but ya never really know) is the comparison is not always so cut and dry as different OB engines often have different red lines, different RPM's for peak horsepower and different torque output, and then add the different horsepower-to-torque curves for race motors. In general, torque numbers are insignificant to hi-po OB guys ... it is horsepower that determines top speed and most of the other speed characteristics of performance on these boats. You can chat and blither about torque all day as it pertains to waterskiing or carrying passengers, but the actual important numbers are horsepower available and WOT RPM.

Second, on the questions woobs didn’t (or probably couldn’t) answer about comparing the two lower units. Of the pieces, the bullet is about 50% I believe of the total drag of the various parts of the assembly. This is partially why Bill’s (N20) 16 is doing 65mph with the Volvo AQ290 while Rootsy is doing 81mph with the about same horsepower but an entirely different lower unit. Now add to that an I/O can’t just adjust “up” the way a wacker does so the best Rootsy can get is 3” higher which also plays a very key role. To say both the Mercury 225 and Super Strangler were rigged as optimal is confusing kinda like talking about X dimensions and misses the key point. You just have to ask yourself - how many inches below the keel did #452 run its prop shaft for a claimed 68mph, how many inches the did the 225 Mercury run its prop shaft for a verified 77mph and where did the OMC race motor run its prop shaft for the claimed 84mph. The Super Strangler can run it’s gear case higher than the Mercury 225 AND the bullet’s on both gear cases are night and day different which is 50% of the drag. Now you still certainly have to consider the horsepower of each motor no doubt, but the gear case profile and the height that each motor can run that profile in trying to surface the prop are first and second in importance at these speeds IMO. There's no question that you could surface the Super Strangler gear case design so you have an advantage akin to a Blackhawk drag wise I'd think. Certainly hard to quantify exactly but clearly substantial.

Third and last on the smoking gun hit list is the difference in weight between Dr. Lou’s 1965 purported “OB#1” and the 1975 16 OB Baby running 77. With all else equal, the Mercury 225 motor is factually 227lbs heavier than the Evinrude Super Strangler. Add to that Matty has said on numerous occasions that the very early 16’s were built light to a fault (which is why I am betting that woobs weight is 900lbs against my 16’s 1107 scale weight) and you conservatively add another 100bs if woobs weight comes in at 1,000 and 200lbs if woobs weight comes in at 900. Lets stay with the low number and we are up to 327lbs more weight. The jackplate that the Merc 225 was set on weighs 27lbs. Add it all up and the 1975 OB Baby is 354lbs heavier than the 1965 boat. 354lbs in a round bottom hull which is closer to a delta pad design then a true V is worth IMO about 3mph.

So, unless buizilla produces a killer video (he’s got nuthin) tape showing that the 2004 Merc 225 was hopped up to alter the 77, or Matty finds out #452 had a 26" wheel, some of the weight differences alone between the two boats could mean you boys from Missouri are lookin more and more like dead men walkin. ** No there will never be a water test of the 1965, there will be no pictures, there will be no CRAY algorithms, and no naval hydrodynamic parasitic drag calcs. It’s just me, an abacus, a transport plate that says JLKMA and Dr. Lou Benz’s word. Both in 2012 and 2013.

This desert crossing stuff makes the Winter time fly :tongue:

Just Say N20

02-01-2014, 09:37 PM

Greg,

Why did you pick such a small and almost unreadable font size in your last post?

Ghost

02-02-2014, 12:17 AM

Greg, for top speed, aside from a few real world practicality and livability considerations, rpm makes no difference, cubes make no difference, torque makes no difference. Horsepower is the magic measure of ability to push the boat to a given speed. Further, wherever peak hp occurs in a motor's rpm range, if the boat is dialed in with everything optimized, THAT rpm will be fastest. Period. It is not important that the Super Strangler made its peak hp at 7200 or wherever, what matters is how many hp occurred at that peak hp. Because power is a measure of the RATE of WORK.

There are lots of real world reasons why one might prefer a 310hp big block over a 400hp small block in a given boat. But top speed in a non-endurance contest is NOT one of them. In an optimized setup with other things being equal, more power means more speed, period.

if the Super Strangler made 180 or 185 ish hp, it's fighting one hell of an uphill battle against anything putting out even 200hp, not to mention something making 225 or more.

woobs

02-02-2014, 09:18 AM

Morgan's Cloud

02-02-2014, 09:55 AM

Greg,

Why did you pick such a small and almost unreadable font size in your last post?

'Cause it gets your attention better . Kinda like whispering does :sombrero:

Ghost

02-02-2014, 10:45 AM

Ghost,

I think in this case we have to consider what the SS was designed to do. I'm pretty sure it was not designed to be a drag boat motor... So, if circut racing was it's intended purpose that would involve a certain amount of acceleration for coming through the corners or recovering from a poor line. Point being, that this motor was not designed for top speed ONLY with indefinite time/distance to get there. Max power would have been tuned at somewhat less than WOT with the expectation that it would be more useable hp.

Also, I believe that CID and torque are important factors in a real world overall analysis. Imho you can't just isolate one measure for comparison. I do agree that a 190ish SS is hard pressed to overcome the superior Hp proven to attain 77mph. However, the amount of the load is significant insomuch that the load must be moved practically (meaning we don't have forever to get to top speed, and not vary) and the size of that load we are considering is far greater than the SS was designed to operate in at it's most efficient state.

Simply, the SS was not designed to push such a heavy boat and it was not designed to operate only at WOT for top speed runs. Therefore you cannot assume it would produce performance anywhere near it's designed maximum.

I totally agree that cubes and torque are incredibly-important real world factors, when looking at the overall performance and practicality. They cease to matter when the only criterion for judgement is instantaneous top speed. With a goal that constrained, power is the only factor so long as the gearing and props exist to transfer enough of that power into pushing the boat (otherwise, a motor making less power at the head would produce more net power as thrust). We don't care how long it takes to get out of the hole, accelerate out of turns, whatever. Now, we do care about efficiency of use of that power, but that's up to things like run angle, prop efficiency, etc. But not torque or cubes.

"Give me a lever large enough and I will move the world" and all that. If you are short on torque, such that you fail to reach the rpm of max power, you gear down/prop down. What matters is the power that is realized to push the boat as the thrust vector. That's a function of the power the motor makes multiplied by some net efficiency percentage (which is very complex, but which initial torque or displacement specs don't illuminate.)

Now, for trying to make inferences about what the boat was like overall, I think you are spot on, yet again. My point was just that within reason, the power spec is all that matters when weighing the pushing vector, not the torque or displacement. Make sense?

Simply, the SS was not designed to push such a heavy boat and it was not designed to operate only at WOT for top speed runs. Therefore you cannot assume it would produce performance anywhere near it's designed maximum.

I agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion, and only because the context is making all sacrifices for one instantaneous speed stat. If all one cared about was max attainable instantaneous top speed, and the motor is as you say (it makes max power well below the top of the rpm range), one props up so that he tops out his speed right at the rpm where max power occurs, right?

EDIT: It's a a little like the some of the Warlock tests we've seen. Boats that produce amazing top speeds for the power plant, but that take literally 28 seconds or so to get on plane. Moronic design choices if one wants a great all-around performer, but ingenious if one only wants to tic the high test possible gps reading.

woobs

02-02-2014, 12:19 PM

Ghost

02-02-2014, 12:54 PM

I do agree with you, but this is not really a theoretical discussion. The miracle 84 was claimed in an every day driveable boat that presumably was practical at some level. 23" and 25" props were available for this motor. There might have been custom sizes once upon a time from the race trailer but, I don't think we are looking at a race weekend situation here. She has what she has. Presumably the prop chosen offered the best performance balance attainable under the circumstances. We are not discussing an instantanious top speed reading.

My point is that the SS was doing something other than what it was designed for. Because of that I do not think it is reasonable to claim that it could turn 7,200 rpm, utilize all 190ish Hp and push the relatively heavy v bottom 16 like it would push a race boat. Therefore it was operating at somewhat less than it's designed optimum.

In order for the miracle 84 to happen we need the SS to perform not only to it's known design zenith in ideal conditions but, outperform itself by quite a margin in an application quite different than ideal. That's just the power side....

How do we quantify the benefit of the low Cd of the SS foot? This is what the discussion has come to. Is it worth 25Hp? 35Hp? 80Hp???

Ahh, i see where you're coming from. I was working on the assumption that prior to Dr. Lou, Gerry Wallin (described somewhere that I read as finding speed where no one else did) had tweaked the setup for max speed from a speed record competitor's perspective. (The sleek lower, the exhaust, trim, prop, "raised x", etc., all done with a willingness to sacrifice all-around practicality and longevity for raw top-end speed). This may be a bad assumption on my part.

Good point about the coefficient of drag. I don't know how to quantify that (or its worth in hp) usefully for the lower because I don't have a feel for the relative amounts of drag from the lower versus from the hull at a given speed. I suspect the average person might underestimate the importance of cutting down on that drag in the lower, whereas I think it's really valuable. Like maybe even 7 mph valuable, compared to a stock ob lower. I just don't think, based on what I've seen here, that the SS motor in question had more than about 195 hp, and I don't think that's enough. I think you said it well when you mentioned that even with all the planets aligning, it still doesn't quite seem like enough. That's pretty much where I am.

woobs

02-02-2014, 03:00 PM

78782Maybe I missed that Dr. Lou was intending an all-out speed assault. I was under the impression he took his hot rod 16 our for a drive and put the boots to 'er to see what he could get... and claimed 84Mph. Then did it again later in the day with a passenger.

As we can't quantify the Cd of the SS we have used a poor comparison (the only one we have, really) with the 225 Merc. We can't quantify the Cd of it's lower either but, we know it did 77mph with 225Hp... not a bad performing 16. All we can do is use the 225 in its configuration that day as a benchmark.

For starters, We know we are giving up 30 - 35 Hp right off and that just gets us to 77 mph. Then we need another 7mph (or whatever hp equivilant it takes to go 7mph faster from 77mph to 84mph). Common denominator is Hp. A general rule of thumb is 10Hp buys you 1-2 mph or say 1.5mph. so, it takes about about 45Hp to buy the 7 Mph. That leaves us at 75-80 Hp the SS has to make up to achieve the 84.

Now the modifiers... The 225 is heavier by say 350lbs. In and of itself once at speed this makes no difference except if there is more drag which is probable. Given common experience of speed runs (with an extra person and without) in other boats this could be worth as much as 3-4 mph. we are down to proving the equivilant of 80mph.

The performance of the comparison hulls is also different and although Greg does not acknowledge it the o/b with 21" strakes has less drag than the Ski sporter with 55" strakes (as they are out of play). So let's say 2 Mph for the ob hull.... back to 82Mph.

At this point I would have said that GPS is innacurate (in 1996) enough to be 2-3 mph out leaving us at 79mph.... but, apparently I'm ruled out. Still equivilent of 82Mph

This takes care of weight, height in water, Cd of the hulls and GPS. So the 190ish SS now has to make up the equivelant of 5 mph or 35hp + known motor Hp. About 65Hp - 70Hp total.

Is the slick SS foot able to offset the work produced by 70 Hp ? This is what is required for the miracle 84 to happen.

Now consider the law of diminishing returns that the last gains in speed are more difficult than the first and our average of 1.5mph for 10hp is out the window. We dont have to do this calculation because we know it hurts our chances of proving 84. Similarly when considering the power output of the SS and its ability to utilize all of it's 190ish Hp (and 7,200 rpm) while it is stressed pushing a heavier boat (with a prop that provides overall performance and not just top speed). Again, we don't have to calculate this as the hill just keeps getting steeper.

So now we have considered the Hull, its height in water, resulting drag and method of measurement. We have looked at the motor and its known available Hp as well we have considered the torque and gearing. The last and only item is the Cd of the SS foot. and while we know it to help our cause of 84mph it still needs to offset the equivilant of at least 70Hp to be considered a close race.

I may underestimate the effect of the Cd of the SS however I'm confident that is is not within the realm of reason to expect it can offset the equivilent of 70Hp. I would guesstimate the SS to have an improvement of 15% or so (this would be huge for a race engine). This is by no means scientific but I believe it is sound and logical reasoning. I'm pretty sure I said a million posts ago it would take just under 300Hp to push a Ski Sporter to 84mph. Apparently I have estimated that to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250-260Hp for a Super Strangler to do it slippery lower and all. Call me crazy and double the effect of the reduced Cd to 30% of output and it's still not enough to get the job done.

I don't know how or why Dr. Lou got 84Mph on his GPS. Maybe the GPS WAS set to Kms (GPS units were different then), maybe it read 64Mph and was mis-read. Maybe it was the hand of God. Maybe there's another reason Dr Lou Claimed and believed he hit 84Mph that day. I do know there is no proof. I do know it will likely not be repeated. I do know it can not be verified or calculated. I believe the feat to be improbable and there is very good reason to believe it is improbable. This is not about Dr. Lou. I don't know Dr. Lou and I will say he may very well believe he hit 84mph that day. That does not mean it happened. IMHO it's highly probable that it didn't happen.

So, I suppose this is my case and now I can be done with this and move along.... :) .

As they say on the TV show "The West Wing"... "What's next?"

Greg Guimond

02-02-2014, 03:40 PM

Greg Guimond

02-02-2014, 03:42 PM

Greg, Why did you pick such a small and almost unreadable font size in your last post?

'Cause it gets your attention better . Kinda like whispering does

As was once said, before you lead the lambs to slaughter ........... Speak Softly and carry a Big Stick

Ghost

02-02-2014, 04:10 PM

ghost/woobs, I get a real kick when the MIT boys get to hankerin with all them numbers. I'll get around to the horsepower piece in a minute but first lets snag the drag.

woobs,

1. what is the bullet diameter of the Mercury 225 and what height was it running to achieve 77.7mph?
2. what is the bullet diameter of the Super Strangler and what height was it running to achieve Dr. Lou's claimed 84mph?
3. what % drag does a gearcase bullet generally account for out of a entire lower unit assembly?

Three easy one's for you.

I get a kick out of your Santerian voodoo "math." What's truly hilarious is that even if the boat did 84 mph, you'll be proved correct like a broken clock at the right time of day. :)

but, for the record:
1. Don't know
2. Don't know
3. If you read the last few posts closely, you'd have noticed where it was almost explicitly noted that I don't know.

woobs

02-02-2014, 04:58 PM

1. what is the bullet diameter of the Mercury 225 and what height was it running to achieve 77.7mph?
2. what is the bullet diameter of the Super Strangler and what height was it running to achieve Dr. Lou's claimed 84mph?
3. what % drag does a gearcase bullet generally account for out of a entire lower unit assembly?

1.what is the bullet diameter of the Mercury 225 and what height was it running to achieve 77.7mph? This is irrelivent even if you knew these dimensions because you have no Cd cross refrence to know what it means.
2.what is the bullet diameter of the Super Strangler and what height was it running to achieve Dr. Lou's claimed 84mph? Same as above
3.what % drag does a gearcase bullet generally account for out of a entire lower unit assembly? I don't know and i don't think you do either. You estimate 50% but, even if it is 50% less that is just the foot. What % is drag from the hull vs. drag from the foot. does a 50% less cross section equate to a 50% reduction in drag? You don't know that either.

Since we have NO data we can only look at the unit as a whole and say the Merc at 225Hp did 77mph. The SS has 190ish Hp and the difference after that is all drag reduction. By wildest estimates, there is not enough drag reduction in just a foot to make up for the 70 Hp or so we estimate it takes to go 84.

Greg Guimond

02-02-2014, 09:07 PM

Ghost

02-02-2014, 09:15 PM

What a blowout. Who would have thought that.

So, lets see here. We are down to +25hp and -7mph and a whole lot of "I don't knows", "that's irrelevant" and "I need a CRAY" from the anti Lou crew plus a missing video tape that two weeks ago was the death star to a verified 77.7mph from a stock 16 OB Baby. And ........... it's still February. :thumbsup: I love the smell of napalm in Missouri.

Even the king of useless cold weather banter might be hard pressed to string this one out until we get three 50 degree days and I can go boating. However, I certainly will try :smile:

You're missing the point. "I need a Cray" to know the exact answer is different from "I need a Cray" to know you're full of it. You own the presumption of bull5 hit. :) As a smart man recently observed, "I don't need to go in the house to know it's not secure when I drive by and can see all the windows and doors are all missing."

Again, even if the boat is found and it runs 84, you will be right the same way a broken clock is right twice a day.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 08:21 AM

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 08:23 AM

Based on some of the prior ten posts I am now at 85% probable that 84 was what the Doc clocked :eek:

Just Say N20

02-03-2014, 08:38 AM

I'm at 0%. There is no way a 99 cubic inch, 200 hp engine pushed a Donzi 16 to 84 mph. NFW. Not with one person, and most certainly not with 2 people.

Lots of good thought provoking discussion, but all it has done is convince me it didn't happen.

My Laser ran a consistent 84 mph on RADAR, with a 200 hp V6 Evinrude, on a jack plate set so the prop shaft was level with the pad on the bottom of the 450 lb hull, which also had a notched transom, spinning a 31" s/s cleaver prop.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GwdtAJ56Im0

There is no way a Donzi 16, with a rounded keel, and 1,000 lbs weight is going to "fly" like this, which is necessary to reach 84 mph.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 08:41 AM

Bill, at the start of this banter quest did you think that a 16 OB Baby could lay down 77.7mph with a 225?

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 09:03 AM

I'm with ya on the ate too much yesterday, there wasn't much to watch.

So with the video are you now agreeing that that guy from PR did 76.2 on one pass and 77.7 on the turnaround? Can we put that smoking gun in the holster?

woobs

02-03-2014, 09:20 AM

Based on some of the prior ten posts I am now at 85% probable that 84 was what the Doc clocked :eek:

Okay, smart guy....

I have laid out a stem to stern synopsis as to why the miracle 84 could not have happened. I have used logic reasoning and the facts at hand to describe this. I have attempted to answer all of your questions (at least the ones that CAN be answered) and even followed along with your tangents that have no bearing on anything that resembles either fact or useable information.

You have asked a lot of questions, provided no answers, provided no reasons to doubt any analysis and yet are able to state and restate a belief (only rivalled by the Iraqui PR minister while Bagdad was being bombed in the background) in the miracle 84.

Please enlighten all of us in Missouri. You tell us how it happened.
What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?
Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!
Oh, and cutsie remarks are not really necessary.

BTW: I'm still at 0%. Dr. Lou may have believed he did 84 but, that does not mean it happened.
Convince me.

Ghost

02-03-2014, 09:43 AM

I think you may be missing the point fine Sir. If owning the presumption of bullchit is directly linked to my believing Dr. Lou, then for the first time in this entire thread you are CORRECT! You boys either believe the man or you don't. I believe he owned the boat, it was registered to Gerry Walin when he bought it, it had "OB#1" written under the deck, it had a Super Strangler 8 pumper on the back, and it was set up to go fast. Everything else, well it's down to 354lbs of extra weight, +7mph and -25 horsepower.

Heck, it took many posts to surface that a 16 OB Baby could do 77.7mph with a 225 and we still have a smoking gun around that one.:wink:

The good news ..... SNOW DAY :yippie: so unlike the 21 inner lifting strakes we're still in play :biggrin:

I don't think you understand what the broken clock metaphor really means. You have laid out a bunch of your "math" and your reasoning and it is KNOWN to be false. The "physics" you cite is simply wrong. Even if the boat did 84, it would have been for reasons different from your "math." I actually summarized what you DO know, worth repeating here...lemme go get it...

Here it is:

You claimed earlier that you understood the forces in play very well, but it is clear that is not the case. Rather, what you understand is that:

other things being equal, lighter is faster
other things being equal, more powerful is faster
other things being equal, less drag is faster
lifting a hull with a sling, best to use a spacer bar so you don't crush it
cut out enough weight and drag, ala Colin Chapman, and you sometimes surprise the brute force crowd

Of course, any fool knows 1-3, and 4 has nothing to do with estimating boat speed.

Just Say N20

02-03-2014, 09:46 AM

Bill, at the start of this banter quest did you think that a 16 OB Baby could lay down 77.7mph with a 225?

Maybe with a modified engine. To me, having done whatever I could to get those last precious mph out of at least 7 different whacker boats, I have a real issue with a Donzi 16 with an unmodified bottom/running surface, being a platform capable of upper 70s with a 225 hp outboard.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 09:47 AM

Ghost

02-03-2014, 09:50 AM

Ghost, one thing that I have noticed in many of your posts is that you tend to get wrapped up in small parts of the talk track and then make them more important than they are. I admire it for the elegant wording, and occasionally there is a tidbit but that's about it.

Not surprising this is your take. Like a joke, science is better if you get it. Failing to understand what I write leaves you with no way to understand the significance of what I write.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 09:51 AM

Before I can put the final nail in the Missouri coffin, you boys all need to weigh in on 77.7mph. I think the guy did it, and I have a GPS pic of that number.

Ghost - 77.7mph?
woobs - 77.7mph?
BUIZILLA - 77.7mph

Anyone else? N20 is saying no and perhaps BUIZILLA has a second video that might show the Merc was modded but sounds like some annoying tech stuff has it locked up at the moment. Am I right about that, are there two videos?

woobs

02-03-2014, 10:12 AM

Please enlighten all of us in Missouri. You tell us how it happened.

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?
Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!
Oh, and cutsie remarks are not really necessary.

Well????

woobs

02-03-2014, 10:22 AM

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?
Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!

Answer the above with what you've got. Simple for you, right?

Not my post...give us your take.

So far:
You have offered...nothing
You have proven...nothing

Convince me.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 11:05 AM

Ok, agreed. Do you recall if the 2nd video that you are trying to dig up actually showed a speed? More curious than anything as that could provide another interesting data point comparing it to 84mph

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 11:25 AM

Greg - you've run 16 O/Bs faster than anyone here, do you think it 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 provided a lot of specifics around it.

I guess I have been pretty consistent from the start about 84mph Jay. Went from 40% to 85% probable and now circling the wagons!

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 12:20 PM

woobs,

seeing as I started this thread three years ago and that I have half the post count in this entire Winter banter binge I think it's probably safe to say I'll answer you. So again, I will gladly answer/comment on your post (my comments may be lengthy) but before I do that I'd ask that you answer one simple and quick question .......

Do you believe that the owner of the 1975 16 Baby did 77.7mph with a stock 2004 Mercury 225 EFI and a stock Merc TM Lower Unit or do you think it was modified?

woobs

02-03-2014, 12:48 PM

You tell us how it happened.

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?
Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!

I don't care about post counts.
I don't care about how old the thread is.
I've answered a lot of questions.
This is YOUR opinion, not mine

It's your turn. In your own words, with your own thought process.
Don't just comment on MY post. please author your own thoughts ...

Convince me. ... Go!

jl1962

02-03-2014, 01:59 PM

Right now - in the modern world, we've got one modern power 16 at 77 (I saw it on YouTube so it must be real ;)) and your very modified boat at 79.
That's still 5 long MPH away from Dr. Lou and his medicinal herbs in a nearly 50 year old boat.

I think your probability is WAY too high. There's probably only an 85% chance of it ever being springtime!!!

And another thing - this thread is all fun and games until someone loses an eye!

Peace out.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 02:21 PM

Jay back in for a cameo!

I hear ya but modern means very little in this conversation. All that matters is "better". In the OB world there are numerous examples of an "older" motor design being better on all fronts with a notable exception being fuel mileage. Ask me how long it took to find a 2.5 280 ROS which is already a 10 year old motor and why they fetch so much coin.

I also believe that an E-drive was not modern as compared to whatever year the AQ290 was built. It was older and yet you car motor folks have always said you'd gladly loose that eye if it meant you could get your hands on one. Why, because it gives you an instant 6mph gain in speed against a 280/290. Plug and play.

Modern? That Super Strangler has 200lbs of compression. Try running that on modern fuels.

Name it ............."Talkin about modern? Y'all experts? Y'all know about modern? I'd like to hear about it" :salute:

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 02:23 PM

And on me running 79mph, I don't know what the hell I'm doin anyway so don't read too much into that one. :smile:

Just Say N20

02-03-2014, 03:55 PM

And on me running 79mph, I don't know what the hell I'm doin anyway so don't read too much into that one. :smile:

I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying that the bottom on your MULE has been substantially changed using some modern "tricks" to achieve a higher top speed, like adding a pad. If you ran 79 with the bottom improvements, and an engine with more power, using a transom jack to achieve optimal height, it seems unlikely that someone with a less potent engine, and an unmodified hull would be 5 mph faster.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 05:42 PM

Bill, you have posted a lot of good insights during this thread, including just flat out saying that the 1975 16 Baby would have to be running a modified Merc 225 to get to 77.7mph.

I respect your opinion because you own a fast I/O 16 and actually have experience with some performance OB's over time. With that in mind I have been wondering why The Mule is so slow even with a pad as compared to the 1975 16 OB Baby with the factory stock 24 degree spoon bottom. Two things come to mind in that regard based on the fact that I think 77.7 was achieved with a stock motor. The first is how sharp and true my pad running surface is. I have no idea actually as I have been more interested in fiddling with different motors and set-ups and trying to break it to see where things were weak so that I could improve those areas later. Pads really work best if the thing is sharp and true, so maybe that is one reason the best I have ever clocked is 79. The other reason is driver skill. Do I have a lot of seat time, sure but I'm no pro. Let me give an example. In doing some experimenting I brought my boat down to Virginia to leave it with a shop that has a lot of experience racing V bottoms. I wanted to get another set of eyes on a bunch of things and these guys have competed for years. I left it there and about a week later they got a chance to start in with some "as is" testing. One of the guys dunked the boat in the river and took two passes to get a little used to the boat. On the 3rd pass he laid down an 82.4mph. He called me up and said "we just did some testing and I know you have been hunting for 80, well we got 82 third time out."

Same boat
Same prop
Same gas tank half full
Same weight as me although his head is not nearly as big lol
No experience with 16 OB Baby's other than saying it had been many years since he had seen one
And ..... freshwater

One big difference, he was a highly skilled driver. When you are up playing around at those speeds with boats not designed to do so, the driver also matters.

Now back to the stock spoon bottom on a 16 for one last thing. That spoon bottom, with proper set up is more akin to a pad bottom like mine than a standard deep V. With a real focus on setup they can be made to run pretty well up in the higher speeds. Lot of driver input required FOR SURE but look at the 1975 clocking 77.7. Pretty impressive with a stock motor.

jl1962

02-03-2014, 06:51 PM

Greg-

Two things come to mind reading your last post (1183). I completely agree that a top driver can wring a few more MPH out of any rig.
I would also speculate that you are a pretty fair driver, while not a pro, likely better than Dr. Lou. And yet a better driver got an extra 3 mph fairly easily.
Which begs the question - if a non-pro (The good Doctor) driver was able to get 84 mph out of that rig one magic, Miami day - ask yourself if a pro could've gotten 86 or 87? Who knows, maybe it was a 90 mph boat? Not very likely........
You've tried to take into account every aspect of that day, knowable and unknowable, but you haven't really factored in the driver. I think there is no way in God's Green earth he had the chops to do it.

The second thought is, why not ask your outboard/ v-bottom gurus in VA what probability they would assign to this snipe hunt!
;)

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 07:02 PM

Jay, the Doc had over 30 boats so who knows but I suspect he was pretty crisp at the wheel back in the day. We probably have to give him some credit but specifically my comment about driver ability was general. I think the Doc and I were probably the same skill. Now if it were Gerry Walin, whole nutha story there for sure friend. As far as asking my boys in VA, they are die hard Merc boys and would do the black is best hulu dance for sure. Plus they would ban my rig in the future from entering into the facility. As to the sack size required, how many of us have done very stupid things in our early years when speed was involved? Probably everyone. When I was younger I was reckless.

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 07:24 PM

-
Any of you gents want to take your horsepower numbers to get to 84 down a bit? Ghost, 50 pony "range"? At least woobs put a stake in the ground with 295hp :shades:

I'm at 300hp to do 84mph at-will on any given day with a weedwhacker that will turn way up.

I'm at 280hp to 330hp to get to 84.

I still don't see it although the huge weight difference between a V8 and a Wacker makes a big difference. And for the record, I LOVED the V4 Super Strangler engines. Having said all that, I would say it would take at least 340 wacker hp to get to mid-80s.

I'm in at just under 300hp. Say, 295hp...to reach 84mph

on an unmodified 16 hull with 55s (short strakes) 330-350hp for an OB, say 340hp

at 1600# it would take a solid 275-280 hp at the prop at 6800-7000 rpm using a 13.25-13.5" dia wheel

Greg Guimond

02-03-2014, 07:57 PM

-
It looks like I'm going to need another Kenworth .......... ducky's already conked out in the warm sleeper btw ..........

I don't believe the 84 ..... and no, i'm not believing the 76.2 with the bone stock 225 either, hell no

I don't know.

I was under the impression that the 76.2 was documented on you tube. If so, it's a given that it happened...but, it's not a given that it's stock.

Running 76 with a modern 225 and perfect setup sounds very plausible.

stock 225? not a chance in hell either.. if your talking the one on you tube, as I think you are, that's a highly modified open exhaust mid, we discussed this here before, if that's the same boat

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 09:13 AM

the PR YT video is only of the 74.0 claim...... if you did 79 with 245 hp and he did 77.7 with 225hp thats about 1 mph for 20 hp, which could make unilateral sense... maybe

the other video i'm talking about is shot on a lake in the USA of a different boat, and it does have an open mid. Absolutely NOWHERE did I state that the PR boat had an open mid.

I'm still confused, shocker huh? Over many posts you said that the 77.7 could only be achieved with a modified Merc 225 and that there was a youtube video to prove that out to me Then, yesterday you said that there are now two videos. One that shows a boat in Puerto Rico and has an in motion claim of 74.0 and now a second one that was shot in the USA of a Donzi 16 Baby with an OB that has an open mid.

Where is that 2nd youtube video? Are you saying that this second video shot in the USA (not the Puerto Rico vid) is of the boat that did 77.7mph and that we will see that the motor has been modified including an open midsection?

I looked for the USA video and can't find the 2nd smoking gun BUIZILLA. :confused: Would love to see whatcha got but I think you are running out of smoking guns!

duckhunter

02-04-2014, 09:55 AM

-
It looks like I'm going to need another Kenworth .......... ducky's already conked out in the warm sleeper btw ..........

Passing out out in the sleeper doesn't mean I'm ready to head east just yet. Good thing the heater was cranking too, because I really didn't want to have to spoon with your driver. By the way, Earl says "hi." :wavey:

The discussion seems to have come full circle yet again, but there still seems to be something missing. Unless the laws of physics were suspended on the afternoon in question I just can't wrap my head around getting mid-80s with 200hp on a 16. If I were sitting in the shop doing some winter bench racing and someone asked me what that combo would run I'd be a lot closer to 70mph on the nose. And I'd qualify that with light fuel, great setup, and a solid driver. Not enough beer in the shop fridge to get me to 84.

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 11:29 AM

I will say that you did give a thumbs up for the 16 OB Baby doing 76 with a stock 225 ...........

Running 76 with a modern 225 and perfect setup sounds very plausible.

But what that boat actually ran was 77.7 with a stock motor unless someone comes up with a video that shows it was modded which aint gonna happen. So I'm going to even it out at 77mph to cut Ghost and woobs some slack on how long they hide behind there Cray and now, you are only 7mph and -25hp away from the promise land. I got that covered 85% in a future installment of live from LaLa Land.

I'm wondering if Matty has been holding out with data on #452. He might be setting a trap around 68mph and 210hp. Hmmmm

duckhunter

02-04-2014, 01:04 PM

I'm with ya, but I said "modern" 225 and perfect setup. That means a good 2.5 that will turn 6k+, plus the right setback, jackplate, prop, etc. There's also a subtle but important difference between "plausible" and "surefirething." I still think it's very plausible.

That whole discussion is a red herring though - the question is could 200hp push a 16 to 84? Nope, not from where I'm sitting in MO. :drinkbeer:

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 01:28 PM

Scott Pearson

02-04-2014, 05:05 PM

Maybe it was a Merc. with a Jato Rocket lower?:eek::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Yup....That would do it!

Ed Donnelly

02-04-2014, 05:20 PM

are you now going to tell us we never landed on the moon and it landed in a suburb of Flagstaff AZ? must be the opposing shadows on the flag and landing craft and the hefty breeze holding the flag out... how fast was that wind blowing on the moon that day? proof proof proof

I actually think it was filmed in Sudbury Ontario Canada
...Ed

duckhunter

02-04-2014, 05:48 PM

It's funny how everyone is so focused on "modern". Don't get me wrong there is some very nice stuff out there that is new, but in OBs the more modern stuff just can't stay with the older motors, ever. There are numerous examples of that which is why I always wonder why it comes up, especially with race motors. On the set-up I think we all agree that awesome set-up was involved to hit 84mph just as it has been shown on the 16 OB Baby that clocked 77.7mph.

So now I'm curious, do you agree that 77.7mph was laid down with a stock Merc 225 EFI and TM lower or do you think that motor was modded?

I disagree. The old stuff is certainly cool & nostalgic, but if 70s tech offered a performance advantage then guys would be running it today instead of black motors. There was nothing magic about the old stuff other than it was state-of-the-art in its time, which is cool enough in itself.

Kinda like car motors. Old stuff (like the Kiekhaefer 482) is awesome. At the same time, with the stroke of a check you can get a BBC with more reliability, better manners, and four times the hp. Check out the Nelson Racing Engines (NRE) videos I posted either on here or on the other site. Chevy 572, twin turbo, dual injectors, 2200hp on race gas. Runs 7s in a full-size Chevelle with a four link and slicks. Turn it down to 1,000hp with the flip of a switch and you can drive it like a grocery getter; A/C on and a 950rpm idle on pump gas and still able to blow the tires away at 75.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with getting a 16 to 84 on 200 old-school or modern hp.

Ghost

02-04-2014, 06:06 PM

I disagree. The old stuff is certainly cool & nostalgic, but if 70s tech offered a performance advantage then guys would be running it today instead of black motors.

I agree with this when it is apples to apples. One thought though: if there is enough of a tradeoff on speed vs usability overall, I can imagine that racing props long ago might be faster for top end than today's all-around props. In the same way that a racing car from the 70s would blow away even a fast modern sedan or even sports car. Such that someone with real speed/racing connections back then might have set up something that was still a faster prop than today's "ordinary" consumer props. Now, I'd still expect a RACE prop from today to be better than any race prop from the 70s. Just think it's possible this could be an apples-to-oranges comparison.

None of which gets me more than 10 steps away from Lake of the Ozarks, just a minor thought. (I could be totally wrong, I readily admit. I don't know a thing about race props, then or now.)

bobwpe

02-04-2014, 06:40 PM

Here is the 74 mph boat in Puerto Rico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKksEHMDag

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 06:43 PM

nobody with a brain is going to agree on this since there are *suspiciously* no witnesses either?

WTF difference does all this make? there are no physics to substantiate your dreaming theories of irrelevance

as said earlier 5 billion times, show us the proof

FYI - the *other* video or cell phone taping or whatever absolutely existed, if you think i'm bullshipping you then you can go * yourself :umbrella: there is no GPS attached either nor did I make a speed prediction or state positive speed proof, you excel in putting words in there that never existed... it just shows the boat with an open mid going from right to left and then left to right... i'll find it when I can

hold on, we're still discussing 84 with 2 people, ya, okay, where's the proof of that, of yeah that don't exist either

are you now going to tell us we never landed on the moon and it landed in a suburb of Flagstaff AZ? must be the opposing shadows on the flag and landing craft and the hefty breeze holding the flag out... how fast was that wind blowing on the moon that day? proof proof proof

Puttin words in your mouth? So we can't keep it above the line and cordial? I thought you were out of this three times now. Your pissin on the wrong hydrant, don't blow a gasket over it BUIZILLA. As to the other video, it sounds like you got nothing. Nothing. So it looks like David Vila in Puerto Rico laid down 77.7 with a stock Mercury 225, that is a fact and you have nothing to prove otherwise. How's that work for a guy who only deals in facts even though this thread is based on "what if". I asked you nicely if you the second video because I wanted to see it too. No more, no less. I have to say that Davids speed of 77 is impressive given the TM lower unit. Very cool, indeed.

You got nothing, I got a guy who did 77.7 with a fishin motor which is pretty amazing. Go kick your dog, its only the internet. This is my topic sport. The last time I gave your some sincere kudos for the help you have provided folks over the years. This time I'm going to tell you it's ok to actually say "I was wrong", "I didn't think that could be", 'I don't know everything about everything although I sometimes act like it"
77.7mph .......... go play the number :rofl:

woobs

02-04-2014, 07:48 PM

You tell us how it happened .

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?

Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!

Convince me.

If you have anything.... please share it with us in your own words with your own thought process. Your inability to answer this is making a population explosion in Missouri.

Note*** By my yardstick you are still 35Hp + 7mph short at a minimum.
(May as well be 1000Hp and 50mph if you can't share anything)

woobs

02-04-2014, 07:55 PM

In the same way that a racing car from the 70s would blow away even a fast modern sedan or even sports car.

This was probably not the best analogy to illustrate your point as regular road cars are preforming at much higher levels than racecars of yesteryear.
(i.e. Ford GT40 was unbeatable at LeMans, Sierra Cosworth RS was dominant in touring cars, the Audi quattro WRC was untouchable...sadly all knocked off the top by showroom road cars)

I'm not commenting on your point though... :)

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 08:14 PM

Here is the 74 mph boat in Puerto Rico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKksEHMDag

Correct Bob, that is David's 16 Baby in the video. Here is a picture of the 2004 225 he was using. I worked with him a bit on setting up his boat and never had him say anything to me about mods other than he was trying to bring the motor right to the limiter and it was bouncing off at 5,850rpm. He made a number of changes over time before he got 77.7mph

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 08:30 PM

your absolutely right Greg, I don't know chit, and neither does anybody else here,

I thought we had our spat? We are getting more snow up here and my Ventrac just spun a driveshaft so I'm actually gettin a little low on time. But if you want another quick trip to the woodshed, aok with me.

As I just said one post ago David made a series of changes to his 16 Baby over time so stop putting words into my mouth. Also, stop bringing anybody else into this as it's just you and me. In Davids latest set up the picture below is what he had, so you don't have any idea what your talking about but you just keep on talkin. BUIZILLA, you were wrong. David evidently laid down 77.7mph with a stock 225 and a TM lower. He had made upgrades that included Sea Star Pro, then a Vance 4" manual plate that weighs 37lbs. Finally he went to a Tempest Plus which is also the prop I clocked my 79mph with. You should probably exit stage left and go find that "other" video. You probably don't want to get into a chest thumpin match until you show that the 225 was modded.

You got nothin. You're in a corner and not smart enough to realize it and exit with grace. Or maybe just say, "I may have been wrong". If someone does that to me, I just say I'm wrong and "I learned something"

ps:The real funny thing is I keep hopeing you can prove me wrong with mods because then it will make me feel a little better about how slow The Mule is. I kinda win either way. :wavey:

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 08:39 PM

And here is a little archive track for ya BUIZILLA. Looks like 77.7 is a lock and you need to call Hydrotec for your 16. Now can we move onto 25hp and 7mph sport? I'm missing LaLa Land and I'm seeing mirages :eek!:

this has been an interesting topic so far, but I ran some hp/weight/rpm calculations myself, and 84 mph would take a one off potato chip hull, 6 gal plug in tank, and well north of 8,000 rpm, and over 200 hp to get r done.. oh, and the chine walk starts at 57-58... with that said, i'll sit back down and spectate some more

4. Can a 16 OB Baby with a 2004 Mercury V6 (225hp) O/B do 76mph? ..............................yes > whose boat is/was this? 76mph with a stock 225 upper and lower?? Opti or EFI 225? and you went 79mph with an actual 245hp and sleeker lower?

if that STOCK 225 ran 76.2 Greg, your Promax 225 at 245hp is a Supreme Dog to *only* run 79

Greg, keep it real, the supposed 76.2 was with a STOCK 225, not your PM in the pic's. never did find out what prop and height it was run at?

i'll find the video when I get time, it's out there, may have even been on here or S&F, up to my ass in alligators

Greg, i'll throw down the gauntlet.... i've seen the video, others here have seen it, and it's out there, it *may* even have been posted on this board, or another board, or two..

I found the YT video of the Puerto Rico boat at 74.0, .... if and when I can get the Geek Squad to unlock/dynamite my DOA PC download files i'll get the other one out of it...25hp and all the drugs in Columbia Mexico won't get ya 7mph.

the PR YT video is only of the 74.0 claim...... if you did 79 with 245 hp and he did 77.7 with 225hp thats about 1 mph for 20 hp, which could make unilateral sense... maybe. the second video i'm talking about is shot on a lake in the USA of a different boat, and it does have an open mid.

nobody with a brain is going to agree on this 77.7 since there are *suspiciously* no witnesses either? FYI - the *other* video or cell phone taping or whatever absolutely existed

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 09:28 PM

And just because I'm in a giving mood BUIZILLA, here is the owner of the 1975 16 Baby OB describing his 77.7. Why don't you go shake him down in Puerto Rico to challenge that he actually did it. Tell him you were not physically there so he's making it up. He's a nice enough guy, I'm sure he'll give you a tutorial on how he spanked logic or what mods he "hid". Run the numbers, the guy is spot on under prop slip theory so better start finding those mods he did. There is a kerosene lamp in the woodshed that doubles as a heater :rolleyes:

Greg Guimond run 81 mph in a Baby 16. That give me hope to reach the 80 mph mark.

Yep, That is the photo. The Jackplate is manual 4" setback. The lower unit is a stock one that came with the engine with the four holes. I dont use a nosecone and have 15 psi of water. I run maybe an inch higher but at the same angle. I will be there next week and can take a clear foto.

I run today with 1/4 of gas at a higher trim than the last run (see pics). Run 77.7 @5750 rpms (overspeed alarm sound) Have a slip of .083% and run the other way 76.2. , Your coment sound logical but iff I run faster with more trim , I believe I need to raise the engine a little more in the jackplate to get more prop out of the water without loose the grip. I try to run one time at maximun height but dont work. I will try a 1/2 inch at a time.
I considere a Tempest plus 28 Lab.

Greg Guimond

02-04-2014, 09:34 PM

Ok, back now to the more interesting LaLa land stuff of Dr. Lou and 84mph :outtahere:

duckhunter

02-04-2014, 10:24 PM

it's getting crowded in MO, everyone seems to have abandoned you

I sincerely apologize for jumping in your topic, really I do, really, so continue the shoveling :umbrella: and i'll leave you to your wet dream of 25hp gains you another 7 mph and add a final thought... if 25hp gains 7mph, then your boat should have run 93 with ease.. and the stock PR boat should run 84.7.... there's that 84 number again, imagine that

Dude, I know we're all over the place on this thread but you're not keeping up with the discussion. :banghead: The deal is, apparently the mystery boat ran 7mph faster with 25 LESS horsepower than the PR boat, and backed it up with another dude on board. We're attributing this to a sleek lower, miracle race prop, and unbelievable 1970s two-smoke technology compared to a modern ProMax.

Are we gonna need to file state taxes in MO this year?

Ghost

02-04-2014, 11:53 PM

This was probably not the best analogy to illustrate your point as regular road cars are preforming at much higher levels than racecars of yesteryear.
(i.e. Ford GT40 was unbeatable at LeMans, Sierra Cosworth RS was dominant in touring cars, the Audi quattro WRC was untouchable...sadly all knocked off the top by showroom road cars)

I'm not commenting on your point though... :)

:) I was thinking more like the John Player Special.

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 08:06 AM

Greg, you post a pic above yesterday of a stock, non jacked setup, without a prop, then you decide your the King of Info Changing and post a pic right above here now AFTER my comment to you, of a NOW jacked up 6", painted and smoothed lower, and a shiny prop... bait and switch and argue, you've done this to everybody here

Jim, do you reeeaaally want to have the last word on this one because your now starting to tick me off. Simply put, your full of it. I said the guy had made a series of changes (read the post) to attain 77.7 and then I went and searched up the final configuration and posted the picture for all to see within minutes OB's by there vary nature will all have different set-ups, that's the advantage of an OB over an IO. #452 does, the 1975 Merc 225 does, I do on mine, you do on yours, and Dr. Lou did on his. I gave you all the details needed, you are just trying to wrap things to protect your position instead of finding out what mods (which I believe are zero) he may have done. You got nothin, zero, nada, zilch and you got no video proving otherwise to boot.

You see the motor the guy used to get 77.7mph, you see the set-up, you see the Tempest Plus prop, you see the comments directly from the owner, you see a GPS picture of 77.7mph. Are you one of these guys who just can't accept that he might be wrong? I'm not, I'm into learning something new. As this thread morphed I learned that David got a bad azz speed out of stock power. If I'm wrong and you can prove me that is fine to.

77.7, read it and weep. Do you always think people are not telling the truth? I (probably to a fault) tend to believe folks. I think David Villa's motor was stock as he said.

ps: think about how a TM lower is configured and you might gain an idea of how David clocked 77

dsparis

02-05-2014, 08:14 AM

I'd like to see PROOF that the Strangler made more than 155 hp AT THE PROP, any Strangler. Not heresay, PROOF.

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 08:22 AM

I learned a lesson that you can't argue with BS and wayward dreams. 99% of what I stated was dead on accurate. you don't even know if that is a worked 225EFI or a stock 250EFI? 1 mph difference tells me it's a 250 or your 245PM only makes 225hp, decals can lie ya know...

Where's the BS? The guy has a picture of 77.7, a youtube video of 74.0 and he has said (repeatedly) that the 2004 Mercury is a 225 EFI. The slip #'s also seem to make theoretical sense to others here to boot. Your amazing with how you constantly challenge a poor guy from Puerto Rico who's evidently figured out a good set-up. Call him in Puerto Rico and ask him what mods he did or put a cork in it. Do you even know how a Torquemaster is configured? Keep it comin, because you have me goin now and we're closed up here for snow.

Jim, you could be wrong here. Consider that absurd angle! :doh:

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 09:05 AM

Sweet 1972 16 OB Baby for sale ..........

woobs

02-05-2014, 09:39 AM

I'd like to see PROOF that the Strangler made more than 155 hp AT THE PROP, any Strangler. Not heresay, PROOF.

Of course you mean the Super Strangler...I made the same mistake several hundred posts ago and got whacked for it.

dsparis

02-05-2014, 09:50 AM

Of course you mean the Super Strangler...I made the same mistake several hundred posts ago and got whacked for it.

Yes Super Strangler, Super Dooper Strangler, man on the moon N.A.S.A prepared Super Dooper Super Strangler, etc.:superman:

BUIZILLA

02-05-2014, 12:19 PM

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 01:04 PM

Greg, I just deleted every post I made on this thread, something like 4 pages worth, I looked back over 41 pages and seen what you have done to everyone here by pasting things upside down and backwards, to satisfy derangement. Just not going to participate on this shenanigan.....

when I tell you i'm done, i'm done, and you still dog me..... I don't F' around

Jim, don't post up threats on the internet. I told you posts ago that I was glad to call you and make amends. It's still an open offer. I told you I say on this forum the exact things I'd say to you in person. I stick by that. You are the one that brought this sub segment up a notch and moved away from cordial, not me. Next time, don't jump in my cage about a thread based on what if "fiction" or 77mph "fact", it's more annoying than the year long IRS audit I just got done with and that was painful and costly. It's a friggin boating site. :mad:

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 01:06 PM

woobs

02-05-2014, 01:23 PM

You tell us how it happened.

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?

Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!

It's been four pages since this simple request was made the first time...

In your own words please, with your own thought process.... convince me. Whatcha got ?

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 03:50 PM

Do I have to my head hurts

woobs

02-05-2014, 04:06 PM

Sweet 1972 16 OB Baby for sale ..........

from the Ad:
1972 Donzi "Sweet 16" Classic Speedboat with Outboard for Sale $14,500

Very rare outboard-powered model. 16.5 feet in length, deep-Vee hull with 24-degrees dead rise, slices water beautifully. Coast Guard plate states Maximum Capacity 4. Red in color with white strip and white interior, with complete Faria gauges.

Powered by 2002 Mercury Racing Promax 225X in excellent, low-hour condition. Excellent compression and performance. Runs very well. High-performance Sportmaster lower unit with stock low-water pickup. Engine sits on a hydraulic jackplate from Bob's Machine Shop, in FL. Mercury Racing Service Manual included.

White reupholstered interior is beautiful condition.

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion but,....From the e-mail I got today it does just over 70mph with a Merc Promax 225X...
Hi Sean, the Donzi will go just over 70mph. It's a hell of a ride!

Sent from Randy Rauch's iPad.

On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Sean Conroy <cd290b732f3f36ab8a6734a3ad98fc63@reply.craigslist. org (cd290b732f3f36ab8a6734a3ad98fc63@reply.craigslist .org)>wrote:
How fast does it go?

Thanks,
S.

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 04:27 PM

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 05:13 PM

woobs, maybe ask the owner how many times he has run that 16 OB Baby. The Sporty can be very effective but requires a lot of experience and seat time to use properly on the 16 hull. It would be interesting to know how long he has owned the boat. Remember that Dr Lou had over a decade under his belt with his rig. David Vila was on his second 16 OB Baby when he found 77mph. If that red boats owner is who I think he is, he has owned that boat for just over a year. Btw, very nice ride and well sorted package. Blow off your project and buy it instead. Very nicely sorted.

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 06:20 PM

So it looks like to clock 77mph in a 16 OB Baby you need to run a 20" 225hp motor's propshaft at about 2" below the keel line with a 1/4 tank of gas.

mattyboy

02-05-2014, 06:22 PM

Here is an ad that I ran across for the 16 OB Baby. Interesting that it's from January of 1971 so it would have been showing a 1970 hull I suspect. I don't think there is a
lot of information on the 1970 16 Baby production year. The ad is in good shape.

production started in august of 1970 16B1 was white and red and could be what is seen in the B&W ad pic it could also be 16B3 which was started in sept of 1970 also white and red

there were 17 baby 16 hulls started in 1970 13 of them were invoiced by the end of 1970

duckhunter

02-05-2014, 07:28 PM

So it looks like to clock 77mph in a 16 OB Baby you need to run a 20" 225hp motor's propshaft at about 2" below the keel line with a 1/4 tank of gas.

Actually, you've now got a sample population of TWO 225hp 16s, one running approx 71 and one running approx 78 (rounding up).

Sample size = n = 2
Sample mean = xbar = (71 + 78) / 2 = 74.5mph.
Variance = [(71-74.5)^2 + (77-74.5)^2] / 2 = 9.25
Standard Deviation = SQRT of Variation = 3.04

With such a small population you can't use normal distribution, but t-distribution would work.

What's your null hypothesis? If it's that 225hp gives >= 77.7mph the data doesn't support it, but your single test subject does in fact make the mark, so I'll buy that.

If the null hypothesis moving forward is that 200hp gives >= 84mph we definitely won't need a Cray to sort it out... :umbrella:

Greg Guimond

02-05-2014, 08:08 PM

What's your null hypothesis? If it's that 225hp gives >= 77.7mph the data doesn't support it, but your single test subject does in fact make the mark, so I'll buy that.If the null hypothesis moving forward is that 200hp gives >= 84mph we definitely won't need a Cray to sort it out...

So if the single test subject (1975 16 OB) that actually did 77mph makes the mark for you then we start there. I now have to find 25hp more and 7mph more or I'm stuck at 85% probability that Dr. Lou made 84mph happen. I'll need to limber up a bit before I make this high jump.

But wait, there's more.........how do we factor in #452 that did a claimed 68mph with 210hp? Shouldn't that be in my abacus and my null skull some how, some way? I mean let's round out the sample and make the high jump even tougher :) It's me, myself and I against all of Missouri and MIT at this point :superman:

Lane 1. 1967 Ski Sporter 16 OB - Modded 1998 210hp Johnson - Stock Lower Unit = claimed 68mph
Lane 2. 1975 16 OB Baby - Stock 2004 225hp Mercury - Stock Lower Unit = 77mph fact
Lane 3. 1965 Ski Sporter 16 OB - Race 1975 200hp Super Strangler - Stock Lower Unit = claimed 84mph

First, can we go surfing for a while?

dsparis

02-06-2014, 09:15 AM

I'd like to see PROOF that the Strangler made more than 155 hp AT THE PROP, any Strangler. Not heresay, PROOF.

Still waiting

woobs

02-06-2014, 10:11 AM

Speaking of waiting....

You tell us how it happened.

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?

Don't leave anything out now.... here's your chance to shine!

In your own words please, with your own thought process....

Convince me.

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 11:16 AM

I'm still waiting too woobs, on duckie. I need to know all my puzzle pieces from you boys :yes: . Btw, did you ask the guy selling the red 16 how many times he drove it?

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 11:52 AM

production started in august of 1970 16B1 was white and red and could be what is seen in the B&W ad pic it could also be 16B3 which was started in sept of 1970 also white and red. there were 17 baby 16 hulls started in 1970 13 of them were invoiced by the end of 1970

Interesting Matty. So if the first factory production 16 OB Baby was started in August of 1970 from what I have read of your notes it would have taken about 4 weeks to finish the build. So roughly we have a boat ready to be rigged with a wacker on October 1, 1970 and then sent to a photo shoot for an ad that gets run in January 1971. Back then the lead time for placing an ad and the ops work required would have been a factor. If we are shipping magazines the first week of January, the editor would have a deadline for artwork on December 1, 1970.

That means that photo HAS to be either 16B1 or 16B3, either of which could have made the publishing deadline for Motor Boating and Sailing's January 1971 issue.

Raceman is right on. 1968 & 1969 were very similar in the thick red band, the 1969's added the white decal model designation on the top cowl and the font and model description at the top of the mid section (lower cowl) was different in 69. 1970 & 1971's had 2 narrower red stripes that replaced the thick red 68/69 stripes and the 100 & 125's were replaced with 115 & 135's.

Now one thing that is still not making sense is the fact that I can't see water pissing out of the right side of that Mercury. What's up with that? Earlier in this thread we confirmed 100% that all Merc's peed water from the right side.

duckhunter

02-06-2014, 12:18 PM

I'm still waiting too woobs, on duckie. I need to know all my puzzle pieces from you boys :yes: . Btw, did you ask the guy selling the red 16 how many times he drove it?

I've got nuthin'. Can't make the numbers work. If we accept 68mph on 210hp, 77.7mph on 225hp, and 80+mph on your 245hp, then running 84 on 200hp can't be jethro'd out mathematically. Not worth even trying to plug it in to a confidence interval or p-test, because on their face the numbers don't work and can't even be massaged to make it more plausible.

If the problems on my quantitative analysis exams were this straightforward I could avoid a couple pages of painful calculations and just answer with "That dog don't hunt" and go get a beer.

At the end of the day though I'm just a big dumb paratrooper stuck in MO for the winter. What are we missing here?

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 12:31 PM

Hmmm. Ok, lets throw out my personal boat for this round and go with ...........

Lane 1. 1967 Ski Sporter 16 OB - Modded 1998 210hp Johnson - Stock Lower Unit = claimed 68mph
Lane 2. 1975 16 OB Baby - Stock 2004 225hp Mercury - Stock Lower Unit = 77mph fact
Lane 3. 1965 Ski Sporter 16 OB - Race 1975 200hp Super Strangler - Stock Lower Unit = claimed 84mph

Now you Missouri paratroopers are more of sharpshooten full menthol crowd where the ol MIT boys are solderin circuit boards and swappin drams in there CRAY right about now to trick me.

Now, I'm gonna give you ALL one more chance to cry Uncle and come over to the Dr. Lou Crew - where the drag is smaller and the speeds are taller :bighug:

dsparis

02-06-2014, 12:39 PM

I'd like to see PROOF that the Strangler made more than 155 hp AT THE PROP, any Strangler. Not heresay, PROOF.

Why not just claim the super strangler had 1000 hp and put this to rest ?

woobs

02-06-2014, 01:24 PM

I'm still waiting too woobs, on duckie. I need to know all my puzzle pieces from you boys :yes: . Btw, did you ask the guy selling the red 16 how many times he drove it?

In a thread with over 1130 posts, where you have championed a statement of 84mph...
You want Duckie to hold your hand???
Obviously you have reasoned out this for yourself... How else would you be 85%???
Seriously, what are you really waiting for?

To state your case, just share your thought process.

What factors do you see as important to prove 84mph?
How do you quantify/qualify these factors?
How do those factors have to stack up and work together for 84mph?
What assumptions have you made for those factors?

Tell us how it was done. (there, that's tricky)

I think we are looking at a binary answer...
Either it could happen (100%) or it couldn't happen (0%)
If you can't commit; you must acquit!

duckhunter

02-06-2014, 02:47 PM

Tell us how it was done. (there, that's tricky)

I think we are looking at a binary answer...
Either it could happen (100%) or it couldn't happen (0%)
If you can't commit; you must acquit!

I'm not a hand-holding kind of guy. Especially with another dude!

My point with the basic algebra is that the binary answer doesn't support his case, even at a relatively low (statistically speaking) 85% confidence level.

Null Hypothesis (Ho) - Super Strangler boat did >= 84mph.
Alternate Hypothesis (H subA) - Super Strangler boat did < 84mph.

Based on the information on-hand Ho must be rejected; therefore, the alternate hypothesis is not rejected. Boat did less than 84mph.

That's examining the relation of HP to top speed only. Other variables (drag, weight, prop, etc) are tough to quantify and/or unknown. I'm not smart enough to evaluate those variables mathematically anyway. Is there a rabbit in the hat that we haven't been made aware of? Maybe, but I doubt it.

The more info trickles in the more difficult it is to buy the 84mph, but GG's confidence continues to rise. Meanwhile I'm having my mail forwarded to LOTO.

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 06:43 PM

Hey I have to get this thing to March 1st :biggrin: My confidence actually has increased throughout the thread from 40% to the current 85%. Getting that last 15% is 75% of the fun. That and shooting fish in a barrel.
Stay tuned :wink:

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 07:32 PM

Allright I can't wait, the suspense is killing me, especially since ........................ my back hurts from carrying the MIT boys around tryin to find 'em a free Cray upgrade. Wait, woobs, are you agreeing with with 77mph and 225hp? I forget where we left off with that one. I'll take you as a yes on that piece after the prior hailstorm. So lets use woobs to work backwards. His use of the math "theory" shows the Super Strangler could in theory pull 84mph and ducky somewhat agrees that the 225 could pull/did pull 77.

Who am I to argue with these thoughts............I'm just a guy who has run 16 OB Baby's for a decade, and I stink at math.

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 07:40 PM

But before I continue this tomorrow...................

duckhunter

02-06-2014, 08:32 PM

But before I continue this tomorrow...................

78809

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 09:19 PM

- - ->

woobs

02-06-2014, 09:24 PM

So lets use woobs to work backwards. His use of the math "theory" shows the Super Strangler could in theory pull 84mph
Who am I to argue with these thoughts............ and I stink at math.

One big problem with using other peoples data is you have no idea where it comes from. You have totally misunderstood this equasion (or are intentionally misleading by misrepresenting the information for what it is not).

As I stated at the time of the post...The equasion is intended as a ballpark prop selector.
I plugged in YOUR numbers to balance the equasion. By no means is this proof that the numbers represented are possible in real life. Of course it balances, as that's what the equasion is designed to do.... (If you notice there's not even a mention of Hp there. Nor does it account for the type or weight of the boat).

How about starting with your own work.... Y'know your reasons to make you believe at 40%.
Then moving step by step to what things have made you revise your commitment to 85% and why.
How do each of these things help qualitatively to get closer to the 84mph?
How much do each of these things account for quantitatively for getting closer to the 84mph.

Stop using other peoples work. Stop misrepresenting other peoples statements and for goodness sake stop looking to others for approval of your "factoids". We'll be able to agree or disagree with pertenant points when your miracle 84 logic is revealed.

You don't need my math, or my approval or agreement on anything to state your case.
Stand on your own two feet and deliver.

Greg Guimond

02-06-2014, 09:57 PM

woobs

02-06-2014, 10:26 PM

woobs, relax. I said prop "theory". There are numerous slip calculators that would show the same thing and anyone can use them. The numbers are the numbers and they are as good a place to start as any.

Don't put words in my mouth.
Do not assign statements to me that I did not make.
If you have calculations or a theory post it. But, don't change the meaning (or context) of my posts/statements.

Greg Guimond

02-07-2014, 07:26 AM

woobs clear your pm, its full

dsparis

02-07-2014, 08:19 AM

woobs, relax. I said prop "theory". There are numerous slip calculators that would show the same thing and anyone can use them. The numbers are the numbers and they are as good a place to start as any.

The problems are your numbers. Garbage in, garbage out. The way you fudge the #'s I'm starting to believe you are actually obama.

dsparis

02-07-2014, 08:22 AM

I'd like to see PROOF that the Strangler made more than 155 hp AT THE PROP, any Strangler. Not heresay, PROOF.

btw still waiting

duckhunter

02-07-2014, 09:55 AM

These have probably been posted already, but I don't remember them specifically so I'll throw 'em up here. Sorry if it is a rehash. Interesting stuff. These are originally from S&F:

78813788147881578816

This is the engine in question, right? The lower looks a whole lot different than what has been posted, as does the 14:23 ratio. Tuning 8 carbs must have been a treat.

If I ever hang an ETEC on an old Whaler it's getting this paint scheme for sure.

Morgan's Cloud

02-07-2014, 10:44 AM

The one that my boss used to run had a lower unit that had a very well defined and pointy bullet .
His prop looked like that one though .
And his boat was nearly identical to the one in the picture .
I'm sure it was about an 85mph setup .
Wish I knew how to e-mail him and ask what his top end was for sure .

Ghost

02-07-2014, 03:38 PM

So lets use woobs to work backwards. His use of the math "theory" shows the Super Strangler could in theory pull 84mph and ducky somewhat agrees that the 225 could pull/did pull 77.

Who am I to argue with these thoughts............I'm just a guy who has run 16 OB Baby's for a decade, and I stink at math.

Woobs not only said nothing of the sort, he has actually made clear that he said nothing of the sort. Thus, your humble-brag "who am I to argue" garbage insults the intelligence of anyone who can think even a little.

To illustrate the nonsense, let's do exactly the same thing Woobs did with a Merc 9.9 outboard instead of the Super Strangler. Pulling up the specs...6000 rpm, 1.92:1 gear ratio, 8 percent slip. 84 mph is theoretically possible with a shade under a 31 pitch prop. See? So can we push a 16 ob to 84 mph with stock Merc 9.9? Yes, theoretically we can. My probability is 85 % and climbing. Maybe more, since the 9.9 is far lighter.

BTW, no difference doing this theory with the 16 or an aircraft carrier. Did Dr. Lou do 84 in the decommissioned USS Saratoga, using a stock 9.9 hp Merc? Sure, why not?

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're bad at lots more than just math.

zipper

02-07-2014, 03:41 PM

btw still waiting

I agree.... we're all still waiting

Greg Guimond

02-07-2014, 06:36 PM

Thus, your humble-brag "who am I to argue" garbage insults the intelligence of anyone who can think even a little. Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're bad at lots more than just math.

As I said before, I only say in print what I would say in person. I'm not looking for another unfortunate turn of events Ghost so based on your comment above and a woobs pm the fun is done for me as much as I enjoy taking a position. Onto the Olympics!

:salute:

Ghost

02-07-2014, 07:05 PM

That's fine, after all the persistent problems with what you've posted, especially demanding answers while failing to give them, I'd say the same thing in person.

woobs

02-07-2014, 08:41 PM

so based on your comment above and a woobs pm the fun is done for me as much as I enjoy taking a position.

Except, you took a position then...

Offered no factual proof
Suggested no theories to prove it
Qualified no components to prove it
Quantified no components to prove it
Denied others reasoning to disprove
Misrepresented others statements

I'll move we stick a fork in this cause it's DONE!
84MPH Miracle BUSTED!!!!

BTW: PM means "Private Message" so, it's supposed to stay private. This is how YOU contacted me so, don't make it look like I took the fun out for you. You have made your own bed.

Ed Donnelly

02-08-2014, 01:09 AM

This thread got way out of hand and got way too personal.
You have no idea how many people called BS on my 16s' speed

Yes I am still a believer in Dr. Benz speed, but I don't take it personal
when everyone believes otherwise..Ed

Phil S

02-08-2014, 03:58 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-loch-ness-monster-is-dead-no-confirmed-sightings-since-1925-9116569.html

:shocking:

woobs

02-09-2014, 10:01 AM

This thread got way out of hand and got way too personal.
You have no idea how many people called BS on my 16s' speed

In the annals of weird and wacky threads this one will certainly figure prominently....

Ed, I think this is an entirely different situation to your 16 speed mark.(Which incidently , I DO believe).

duckhunter

02-09-2014, 10:48 AM

This thread got way out of hand and got way too personal.
You have no idea how many people called BS on my 16s' speed

At the end of the day you dropped the hammer and let the boat do the talking.

I think everyone needs to put on their big girl panties and not get too worked up about BS on the internet... Winter is too long to not do any bench racing, and life is too short to take it personally.

78829

I don't think a 16 went anywhere close to 84 on 200hp, but if someone wants to build a case for it I'm all ears.

In the annals of weird and wacky threads this one will certainly figure prominently....

The only thing this thread needs is more cowbell!

78827 78828

Ed Donnelly

02-09-2014, 02:21 PM

"I think everyone needs to put on their big girl panties and not get too worked up about BS on the internet... Winter is too long to not do any bench racing, and life is too short to take it personally."

Had to get them out of storage as I only have summer panties
Just washed them and they are now in the dryer

Anyone want to see pics??...Ed

Just Say N20

02-09-2014, 03:05 PM

Even though it did get a little too personal, I think there is a LOT of really good information contained in this thread.

Morgan's Cloud

02-09-2014, 03:36 PM

I only have summer panties
Just washed them and they are now in the dryer

Anyone want to see pics??...Ed

That depends , are they the ones you went 116mph in ? I bet they did need washing .. lol

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 09:23 AM

I'll move we stick a fork in this cause it's DONE! 84MPH Miracle BUSTED!!!!

I disagree. I started with a good dose of skepticism on Dr. Lou's claim of 84mph based on my real world 16 Baby experience which is why I began at 40%. As thread pieces unfolded my confidence grew to 85%. Seeing 84mph from the Super Stangler pushing 1600lbs total is probably achievable at this point IMO. One thing you all would need to do is look at the depth of the prop shaft centerline below the hull and then add to that the lower unit profile(s) overall. The gearcase bullet and skeg are 61% of the drag on a lower unit. If you look at the 2004 Mercury 225's L/U depth you start to see how that guy achieved 77.7mph and why the Super Strangler might/could do 7mph better. There are many examples on this board of lower unit ONLY speed gains. Now I have to get back to those hospital bed corners and chipping ice.

dsparis

02-10-2014, 09:32 AM

And what is the verifiable hp # of the strangler ?

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 09:38 AM

You can re-read the entire thread. It has been discussed very specifically.

dsparis

02-10-2014, 10:22 AM

Discussed (by you) and verified/proven are two very different things.

dsparis

02-10-2014, 10:40 AM

Heres a conversation I had with a friend who actually races boats.

Okay, so here is what I said. I feel it's a stretch based on what I know. The Super Strangler was not officially rated but I know of dyno reports outputting it @ 155 hp at the crankshaft. They offered two different lower units as well. In the late 70's / early 80's we were running 16' Allison Craft in the OPC J-Production class that were reasonably light setups with center steering. We ran in-line 6 150 hp Mercury's (short shaft). We ran hi 70's - low to mid 80's. These were all out race boats. We also ran against a couple of Super Strangers (99.6 c.i.) in JP (100 c.i. Max). In my opinion, a 16' Donzi with a Super Stranger would run high 60's to low 70's. With aggresive hull modifications; i.e., adding "pad" and optimizing the haul for weight and ballast ... Maybe mid to high 70's. This would assume the setup and prop is right on the mark. 83 mph
83 is a major stretch. We actually ran the Johnson version one season GT-115. It was about 145 hp at the crank shaft. OMC

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash1/t5/s32x32/372433_1401090947_838612511_q.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/scott.march3)
OMC gave us the motor for free if we ran it all season so we did exactly that. It was a pretty motor but the Mercs were faster in my opinion.

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash1/t5/s32x32/372433_1401090947_838612511_q.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/scott.march3)
pretty "fast" motor (last sentence above) ...

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 10:45 AM

Again, you will want to re-read this thread completely. The comments were made by OMC race program guys who ran the dyno tests for propshaft horsepower as well as guys who raced against the Super Stranglers in the late 70's. One comment was as recent as yesterday. The KR15 8 pumper was very highly regarded and won against Mercury.

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 10:56 AM

Upon even closer inspection your friend sounds like he may be mixing up race motors a bit which is understandable. It's hard for me to decipher who is actually talking in your post but his references tell me he is not commenting on the later model Super Stranglers'. The timeline seems like he may be thinking the slightly earlier motors because of his comments about the two gear cases as well. These mistakes are not uncommon for this series of race motors given they were rare and it's now decades ago. I can't open the tiny pics you have embedded so I can't tell what the tie in might/might not be.

Ghost

02-10-2014, 11:06 AM

And what is the verifiable hp # of the strangler ?

You can re-read the entire thread. It has been discussed very specifically.

This says a lot.

dsparis

02-10-2014, 11:11 AM

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 11:32 AM

I can't find the comment that was made yesterday. And he clearly says late 70's early 80's. Please show me proof that the strangler that was on the 16 in question was more than 155 hp. As was said, put the fork in it.

You can call/visit Dr. Lou Benz somewhere in Florida. I was not there, I can only relay what he said. He gave a VERY complete description of the motor on the back of the Gerry Walin 1965 16. There is no way that someone (ie: boat guy/car guy/ type) would have that level of detail if they did not know what they were running. These motors had some very unique features that he commented on with accuracy. I once told a guy I had an M540i and he told me that was impossible that they were never brought in except for Canada. I was driving the car while he was telling me this.

BTW the horsepower claims came from guys who worked for OMC Race and are alive today. If your friend is one of those people he might have new information which would be very interesting (I would like to learn) but my sense is that he was not employed by OMC Race.

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 11:33 AM

This says a lot.

So does 77.7mph with a 225 Merc EFI

woobs

02-10-2014, 11:47 AM

I can't believe this has opened again???

Much earlier in this thread and after MUCH prodding a figure of 185Hp (dyno) was claimed for the Super Strangler.

Due to the reputation of the OMC race engineer and the addition of cutting edge exhaust pipes Greg claimed 200Hp (unproven).

This figure (200Hp) was countered at an estimated 190Hp (more realistic) to account for the pipes yet, allow for the fact that this was an increase to a fully sorted race motor operating very near to it's potential... and not a raw consumer unit ripe for huge power development claims.

Since we're back... maybe we can START with an explanation of how the miracle 84mph was achieved. so, once again I ask:

Tell us how it happened.

What are the relevant factors?
How did you quantify/qualify them?
Why do these factors add up to the possibility of the miracle 84?
What is your thought process?

Don't leave anything out

In your own words please, with your own thought process....

Convince US.

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 11:57 AM

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 01:27 PM

Here's a conversation I had with a friend who actually races boats. He said ...........

"We actually ran the Johnson version one season GT-115. It was about 145 hp at the crank shaft."

I did not have time before to post but your friend is confusing OMC motors. He is saying that he ran the Johnson version of the Super Strangler, the GT-115. The GT-115 is a different, less powerful motor by far. I would be interested in knowing who he raced for and what year/years he is specifically talking about. You can ask him if the initials JT ring any bells. Thank you.

woobs

02-10-2014, 03:36 PM

I think I told you pretty clearly woobs in post 1158 and provided some pictures. Again, I believe that a combination of prop shaft distance below the keel and gearcase size and profile could provide the extra speed Dr. Lou claims. As to the Super Strangler's horsepower you are correct with one exception. These motors were never available to the walk in consumer in any form. Those were Stranglers as I had told you. The SS was Race.
Thanks.
Post1158...I disagree. I started with a good dose of skepticism on Dr. Lou's claim of 84mph based on my real world 16 Baby experience which is why I began at 40%. As thread pieces unfolded my confidence grew to 85%. Seeing 84mph from the Super Stangler pushing 1600lbs total is probably achievable at this point IMO. One thing you all would need to do is look at the depth of the prop shaft centerline below the hull and then add to that the lower unit profile(s) overall. The gearcase bullet and skeg are 61% of the drag on a lower unit. If you look at the 2004 Mercury 225's L/U depth you start to see how that guy achieved 77.7mph and why the Super Strangler might/could do 7mph better. There are many examples on this board of lower unit ONLY speed gains. Now I have to get back to those hospital bed corners and chipping ice.

Ugh...nice pictures but, hardly a case for 84mph. You are not stating a case so much as reaffirming your beliefs. So, lets get to your thinking...

Specifically,
Which "thread pieces" unfolded to bolster your belief?
How do these "thread pieces" act to aid in performance?
What do each of these "thread pieces" add in terms of outright performance?
How does 61% of the LU drag relate to overall drag?
what is responsible for the other 39% LU drag?
What is the relationship of drag between the LU and the hull?
Are you assuming the same Hull drag on the Miracle 84 boat and the 77Mph boat?
If so, why and if not, what is the difference, and how do you estimate it?
Are these boats comparible? Why? Why not?
If they are comparible what allowances have you made to make them so?

If you're going to make a case please share your thought process. (which you have still not done yet).

BTW: I NEVER mentioned anything about to whom Super Stranglers were available.... And it's not really relevant to the discussion at any point is it?

If you purport to take a position, you have to go on more that "I think so". Withoout proof, and in the face of the overwhelming arguments to the contrary....
This 84 Miracle IS BUSTED!!!!!

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 06:46 PM

Sure woobs, happy to educate. There is a fair amount of proof on this site that the higher the prop shaft and slimmer the gearcase profile the faster a Donzi 16 will go. I'll give you two easy ones to start with ........

Volvo E-Drive -- This is an immediate 6mph gain in speed after you bolt it on
Alpha SS Drive -- This is an immediate 8mph gain in speed after you bolt it on

There are other more specific examples of proof as well (like Rootsy) and then my personal experiences with 16 OB's and I'll happily discuss those but much of what you are asking above is no longer pertinent. Not that you aren't free to construct things the way you'd like on your time. We now have a 1975 16 that is clocking 77mph with a certain prop shaft depth, profile, set up, hp, shaft length blah, blah, blah. The I/O examples above give a reasonable framework for why higher and slimmer is faster. How high and how slim you can go is certainly a topic for discussion. That's where it gets interesting in squeezing out more performance. Thanks

woobs

02-10-2014, 07:12 PM

Sure woobs, happy to educate. There is a fair amount of proof on this site that the higher the prop shaft and slimmer the gearcase profile the faster a Donzi 16 will go. I'll give you two easy ones to start with ........

Volvo E-Drive -- This is an immediate 6mph gain in speed after you bolt it on
Alpha SS Drive -- This is an immediate 8mph gain in speed after you bolt it on

There are other more specific examples as well (like Rootsy) and then my personal experiences with 16 OB's and I'll happily discuss but much of what you are asking above is no longer pertinent. Not that you aren't free to construct things the way you'd like on your time. We now have a 1975 16 that is clocking 77mph with a certain prop shaft depth, profile, set up, hp, shaft length blah, blah, blah. The I/O examples above give a reasonable framework for why higher and slimmer is faster. How high and how slim you can go is certainly a topic for discussion. That's where it gets interesting in squeezing out more performance. Thanks

So, basically you got nothing.
Disagree all you want but,... The Miracle 84mph is BUSTED!!!!

Greg Guimond

02-10-2014, 08:01 PM

No, you must not have read the last two sentences woobs...........

"How high and how slim you can go is certainly a topic for discussion. That's where it gets interesting in squeezing out more performance."

I don't have the time to explain it to you right now, but this is how you could go from a proven 77mph to a claimed 84mph. You have to think about the fact that the bullet and the skeg are 60% of the drag. Assume you had two identlcal boats with identical weights and all you could vary was the propshaft height and bullet diameter and profile. I'll get back to you on that when I have a moment tomorrow. Thanks

woobs

02-10-2014, 08:11 PM

Okay Dude, Whatever....

Phil S

02-10-2014, 09:30 PM

..high and slim...always !

I agree there's a lot of good info here.

Phil S

02-10-2014, 09:41 PM

...just not worth losing friendships, or the potential thereof, over.

Phil S.

Ghost

02-11-2014, 12:21 AM

...comparing the two lower units. Of the pieces, the bullet is about 50% I believe of the total drag of the various parts of the assembly.

The gearcase bullet and skeg are 61% of the drag on a lower unit.

THESE NUMBERS ARE A LOGICAL MESS TO BEGIN WITH:
So, we have heard said (God knows based on what--I tried but couldn't find it) the bullet as "about 50%" of the total drag on the lower.

And we have heard (similarly, God knows where from, but even more precisely) that the bullet and skeg are 61% of the drag on the lower.

Where these estimates come from I haven't the faintest. I read again all the way from the first to the second and saw no sign of where they come from, nor of how/why one was based on gearcase-and-bullet versus just bullet.

But setting aside their origin, nor do I have any idea that these figures even COULD make sense unless they referred to one specific family of similar drives. Meaning, bullets vary radically in size from drive to drive where skegs probably would not vary nearly as much. So, EVEN IF the numbers above were right for some particular family of drives (say, similar in design to a stock Merc 225 ob), they should then be very wrong for a slick racing lower with a skinny bullet). Likewise, the ratio of bullet size to the rest of the drive, besides the skeg, should vary greatly from a consumer lower to a racing lower with a skinny bullet.

So, the whole CONCEPT of what these remarkably-precise and (best I can tell) remarkably-unsourced numbers is a complete mess to begin with. Even if the numbers were right for, say, a stock 225 outboard, they would be very wrong for the sorts of racing lowers we've been comparing to stock lowers.

BUT EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T A MESS, WE'D STILL HAVE A BIG PROBLEM MAKING USE OF THEM TO PREDICT SPEED:
But on to the important part (that woobs pointed out ages back, btw).
Total drag = aerodynamic drag + hydrodynamic drag
= aerodynamic drag + hydrodynamic hull drag + hydrodynamic drag on everything else besides the hull

When we ignore aerodynamic drag, as we have, we are left with
drag = hull drag + non-hull drag
= hull drag + (bullet drag + skeg drag + housing-above-the-bullet drag + prop drag + ...)

Now, what's clear here is that to make sense of the big picture, we need to think about the total drag. Which means you have to look at the hull drag as well as the non-hull drag. Getting lost in the (baseless, best I can tell) minutiae like what percentage of non-hull-drag is from the bullet versus the skeg versus something else is not only a meaningless logical mess (for the reasons above about just how different racing drives are from consumer drives), but more important, it ignores the hull drag entirely. It's fine to look at components of the non-hull drag, don't get me wrong. But to use those sorts of numbers to try to predict effect on speed, they need to be baked back into the overall drag.

Now, for contrast, if we had some (hopefully not baseless) notion of the relative size of hull-drag to non-hull drag for a given boat, then we might make some halfway useful extrapolations. For instance, IF IT WERE KNOWN (I'm just making something up) that:
for a given 16 ob with a 225 "consumer" Merc ob with a "consumer" Merc 3-blade SS prop and a certain "raised X" shaft-to-keel measurement, you could run 75 mph. AND when doing so, 2/3 of the hydrodynamic drag was hull-drag and 1/3 was non-hull drag

Then you'd have some notion of the big picture. Such that if you could then work out that some sleeker drive cut your non-hull drag by say 40% (I'm also making this up), then you could cut your total drag by by 13% or so. (1/3 x .4 = .1333) Now, it's not even as cut-and-dried as that, because the HP stayed constant and the drag dropped so the speed went up and the hull rode an eency biit higher and so on. But at least the crude sort of math would be considering what has to be an important part of the math: drag on the hull.

Instead, we are left with ignoring how big the hull drag is, and instead are comparing (baseless?) drag change specs (to two significant figures?!) on subcomponents of a subcomponent of the total drag. To illustrate the absurdity by an extreme example, it's a bit like saying, "if I shave the front edge of the bow eye into a sharp v, it will reduce bow-eye drag through the air by 61.87%." Fine, as far as it goes (assuming it's even right), but so what? How is one to bake it into the total drag, even crudely, in order to predict its effect on WOT speed?

Leaving the question: has anyone ever seen any credible examples of stats for ANY fast, planing boat that attempted to quantify drag on the hull relative to drag on the running gear?

Ghost

02-11-2014, 12:46 AM

..high and slim...always !

I agree there's a lot of good info here.

Wahoo! :)

woobs

02-11-2014, 08:05 AM

Thanks for spelling that out.
Your synopsis is much more clear that how I was trying to get the point across.

In the (imperfect) comparison of the 77mph boat, and the 84mph boat we assumed the drag from the hulls to be the same . Yes, they are different but, since we can't quantify by how much we assume they are similar enough to be compared and considered roughly equal.

We have looked at the power to push these boats and have considered 190Hp for the SS vs. 225 Hp for the Merc and identified a 35Hp shortfall for the SS.

In a real world application, we also considered the displacement of the engines in terms of practicality for the ability to accelerate during general operational use. Despite this being a factor we set it aside as we were considering the possibility of top speed only.

The crux of the matter falls to the hydrodynamic properties of the SS insomuch that the benefits of it's reduced drag (vs the control boat) had to overcome the benefits of the 35Hp to EQUAL the performance of the control boat. These hydrodynamic benefits also have to overcome the additional 7mph to meet the 84mph claim. Since we cannot isolate ANY individual factors for analysis, we must consider the whole.

The one (and only) question we need to answer is: Can the low Cd of the Super Strangler offset the 35Hp + the added HP required to attain an additional 7mph ?

One might look for a common denominator and convert the 7mph to an estimated Hp figure. Using a simple ROT, (which again is not accurate but, dirty enough for our purposes) 10Hp=1.5mph so, 7mph = 45Hp-ish. added to the original 36Hp we have a total of 80Hp difference.

The question now becomes: Can the low Cd of the Super Strangler offset 80Hp ?

woobs

02-11-2014, 08:35 AM

Maybe we need to look at this in another way...

The Evinrude Super Strangler was a 100cid V4 race motor built to compete on tunnel hull boats about 1973.

The only hard record I could find for 100cid race boats was a 15' powered tunnel hull, set in 1976 at 88.9mph.

So, a 15' purpose built lightweight tunnel hull race boat, with a 1976 era 100cid motor at record pace, managed only 5mph more than a 16' V bottomed production boat with a 100cid Super Strangler and 2 people in it?

I'm sure the hydrodynamic properties of the motor used on this this 15' Tunnel Hull boat would be comparible to the 3 year older Super Strangler design. (Although, it might be argued that 3 more years of development in a competitive era provided a better motor in 1976 than the 1973 SS)

Just Say N20

02-11-2014, 10:28 AM

Good point on the 88.9 mph record for a 15' lightweight tunnel hull. That should be the absolute fastest possible set up for a 100 cubic inch outboard. You have a boat that is very aerodynamic, that is virtually flying, so hull drag from water is almost zero, and only the skeg and prop blades are in the water, so lower unit drag is also as low as it could possibly be.

And as we come back to drag, remember that the e-drive and Alpha SS are so relatively effective, because they are slippery compared to what they replace, BUT they are still buried deep in the water, because for all practical purposes, stern drives are not vertically adjustable. Thus the only real way to reduce drag is by making a smaller, hydro-dynamically better shape.

At the high prop shaft location these super fast outboards are running, lower unit drag is almost completely eliminated because the gear case is almost completely out of the water. How "slippery" a drive is becomes a non-issue when it is no longer running through the water. This is why I have difficulty assigning a high drag number like 50% being attributable to the drive. I don't know if that is true on a stern drive running full depth, but I know it can't possibly be true if only the bottom of the gear case is even in the water.

I suppose if you ran a 36" skeg below the gear case it would be significant, but that isn't the case.

Greg Guimond

02-11-2014, 11:11 AM

..high and slim...always !

I agree there's a lot of good info here.

That happens to be my research assistant. Tell her to get back to work lol.

Greg Guimond

02-11-2014, 11:18 AM

The question now becomes: Can the low Cd of the Super Strangler offset 80Hp ?

This has been a major part of my premise for the last 10 post woobs with respect to the Super Strangler. Before that it was the basis for the 2004 Merc pushing the 16 Baby to 77.7. Your 80hp is off by a little but I will come back to that, we are preparing for a major ice storm and I took the day off to torch ice build up off the slate roof and gutters. Total PITA.

I'm glad you and ghost have come around to the importance of the lower unit in the discussion. It's not the only thing but at these speeds its a major piece of the puzzle. Thank you.

woobs

02-11-2014, 12:37 PM

At these numbers (which are no more of a stretch than yours are) you need to beat 275Hp or equivilant with power savings to do 84mph. With this you are saying this SS/Ski Sporter set up pushed the equivilant of 49% more power/less drag than the known starting point of 185Hp.

The above post...a month ago.
Power savings= drag reduction. We've been discussing this for a while now. Certainly longer than 10 posts.

I don't think its possible to seperate and quantify the part the lower plays. You have to ask yourself if it is reasonable to expect the low Drag difference to offset what 80Hp of thrust is worth.

In terms of the Miracle 84, consider the data from the 100Cid hydros. At ther BEST performance with presumably the lowest drag possible on a record run, it's merely 5mph faster than the "claim".
Given our reasoning from both ends look at this objectively, and I think you'll see it's a wrap.

Again, I'll say I don't know why Dr. Lou reported 84mph, and He may believe that he accomplished this however, all evidence and reason is to the contrary.

If you wish to continue to estimate what performance may be possible... well, that's a different discussion.

Greg Guimond

02-11-2014, 09:07 PM

In the (imperfect) comparison of the 77mph boat, and the 84mph boat we assumed the drag from the hulls to be the same . Yes, they are different but, since we can't quantify by how much we assume they are similar enough to be compared and considered roughly equal.

This is all reasonable but I also believe we have arrived at the difference between Gerry Walin's 1965 Ski Sporter OB and Puerto Rico's 1975 16 OB Baby is that the Baby is 354lbs heavier. This 354lbs will be verified by you weighing your stripped Ski Sporter hull next year. If your hull weighs 1,000lbs, 354 lbs sticks. I believe though (for the record) that your hull will weigh 900lbs.

We have looked at the power to push these boats and have considered 190Hp for the SS vs. 225 Hp for the Merc and identified a 35Hp shortfall for the SS.

OMC race dyno'd the Super Strangler 8 pumpers at 185hp. These motors got sold to privateers. Walin's motor was a factory race motor with custom exhaust. Points below from the guys who were there show that the factory motors had more juice than the typical privateer motors. I have discussed this with several guys who raced the later Super Stranglers against the mighty Merc T2X and beat the Mercs. You have to remember that the SS motor was introduced in 1971 but the motor that Dr. Lou bought was a late 1975, so the best of the breed. Thus, 200hp is reasonable.

I didn't read thru all the replies so this may have been mentioned. Late development on these Super Strangler race engines saw a 15/17 lower become available. At one point I was building these engines for a few people, and there was a 3.625 bore version with the 8 barrel set up. We used to run them 7200 at the 7HR Parker Enduro and 7500 -7700 sprint racing.

Correct, during the Strangler/Stinger and SuperStrangler/Stinger GP era there were no published hp figures, but a few years later a handicapping scheme was set up in Mod 100 where the various 99ci V-4 and inline Mercury 99ci raced together. They dyno'ed several of each motor that were assumed to be typical and not special team motors. The lowest guys on the totem pole were the Stranglers and Stingers at about 165, so they got the lightest weight. Next in line was the T2 at about 170-175. Then the Super Strangler/Stinger GP 8 pumper at 180-185hp. And the top dog 99 ci was the 190-195ish T2X
In a real world application, we also considered the displacement of the engines in terms of practicality for the ability to accelerate during general operational use. Despite this being a factor we set it aside as we were considering the possibility of top speed only.

Agree, if you have the space acceleration is no concern. What's more important here is the "framework" of acceleration. Either displacement is more than enough in a 16. A real world example is my 16. If I wanted the mid-range thrill and the low end grunt I would have a heavy 3L on my hull. In reality, my smaller/lighter motor is more than enough for everyday use and WAY better for top end.

The crux of the matter falls to the hydrodynamic properties of the SS in so much that the benefits of it's reduced drag (vs the control boat) had to overcome the benefits of the 35Hp to EQUAL the performance of the control boat. These hydrodynamic benefits also have to overcome the additional 7mph to meet the 84mph claim. Since we cannot isolate ANY individual factors for analysis, we must consider the whole.

25hp not 35hp but the rest is accurate as I have said. Now before I answer your last point the fact Gerry Walins boat was 354lbs lighter must be factored in

The one (and only) question we need to answer is: Can the low Cd of the Super Strangler offset the 35Hp (25hp) + the added HP required to attain an additional 7mph? One might look for a common denominator and convert the 7mph to an estimated Hp figure. Using a simple ROT, (which again is not accurate but, dirty enough for our purposes) 10Hp=1.5mph so, 7mph = 45Hp-ish. added to the original 36Hp we have a total of 80Hp (70hp) difference. The question now becomes: Can the low Cd of the Super Strangler offset 80Hp (70hp)?

Let's figure out the weight difference issue. In the past I believe you have said it is "negligible" but then made reference to lightweight tunnel boats. I believe you are wrong with your comment on weight. A lighter boat will take less horsepower to hold a given speed. How much is 354lbs worth? I believe, based on my experiences with my 16 boats 2-3mph with these buzzy high strung wackers. On my Superboat 21's the ratio happened to be 100lbs = 1.5mph. I know this because I put my 200lb bro next to me and went 3mph slower on many different days. I'm sure you and Ghost have an opinion based on your experience. I also will be giving Ghost some stats to chew on and learn from as we get to parasitic drag. Thank you both.

Edit: Although the outside temp keeps dropping we are getting very close to 84mph (are we down to +7mph?) but I am still at 85% based on a couple of N2Os comments around bullet placement which are insightful. I have to noodle these and have my research assistant check my notes on my Sportmaster over the next day or two

Greg Guimond

02-11-2014, 09:28 PM

woobs

02-11-2014, 10:53 PM

Actually, I've put the whole 84mph thing to bed.
In my mind there's an abundance of evidence to support it did not happen and I'm good with that. We've been over and over it and I'm not going to ride the carousel any longer.

FWIW, I think the hull comparison as "even up" is fair enough even though the Ski Sporter may be lighter. This because I believe the 16 baby to be a more slippery hull. At the outset I stated these couldn't really be compared as they were apples and oranges and this has not changed. But, in a down and dirty comparison with wide margins they could be considered equal and it is the ONLY comparison that we really have. By claiming them close enough to compare, I don't think it's fair to then pick and choose hull attributes you want to hold as an advantage. To do this would require a complete analysis of each hull and we just do not have the data. So, either they are comparible as is (within spitting distance) or their not comparible at all.

As for the 190hp I believe this to be possible. Even your quotes above mention 195-ish as maximum and my research indicated that 190 was the limit. I'm not willing to go anywhere on this without hard data.

We are not just 7mph short as you still have not proven that the SS can MATCH 77mph. And there is no data to support this. By looking at the overall gap to be breached (I say 80Hp) one can estimate if the reduced drag can offset this. You know my thoughts on this.

The final nail for me was when I found the 100cid hydroplane record of 88.9mph. A scant 5mph more than the Dr.Lou claimed 84. For me this shows what a 100cid motor can do on a much lighter, quicker and more hydrodynamic (and aerodynamic) speed purpose designed platform... on it's best day ever...with a skilled driver. It is just not reasonable to expect a similarly eqipped v bottom production boat (no matter how light the lay up) is within 20 mph of this speed. especially not with a passenger.

So, I'll be glad to discuss any individual items, theories or specifics but, not in the context of the 84mph claim. As far as I'm concerned...it's done.

woobs

02-11-2014, 10:59 PM

One thing owners of various 16 I/O models should do is start a list of how far beneath the keel line there prop shafts are at dead level. Easier to measure than true X and more meaningful when comparing car motor MPH.

Where do you think optimum should be? As I've yet to cut the hole, I can put it where I want.

MY Alpha spec is 7 1/4" from plate to shaft.
The plate is 1/2" below keele for a total of 7 3/4".
I'm shortening the alpha 3".
I should have a measurement of 4 3/4" below the keel at spec hole placement.
My desired prop is 7 1/4" (14.5"dia) from shaft center to tip.
This leaves 2 1/2" of the prop above the keel line.

Then you must consider how far from the transom that the prop is. I'm looking for a "Stern Jack" to set it farther back.

What differences will a pad make on these specs?
78849

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 07:30 AM

Actually, I've put the whole 84mph thing to bed. In my mind there's an abundance of evidence to support it did not happen and I'm good with that. We've been over and over it and I'm not going to ride the carousel any longer.The final nail for me was when I found the 100cid hydroplane record of 88.9mph.
So, I'll be glad to discuss any individual items, theories or specifics but, not in the context of the 84mph claim. As far as I'm concerned...it's done.

Not really. If horsepower is horsepower then the above should not matter. You have a guy who says he did 84 and measured it with GPS. Why would he lie? You have a guy who says he saw it happen. Why would he lie? You have a 16 Baby boat that has 225hp and laid down 77.7mph (that no one thought possible) and then produced a video and two photos of his GPS that no one could refute. You have a guy with #452 that claims 68 with ease. Why would he lie. The hydroplane stuff is a small data point as Walin set another world record where he went 105mph with a 20cu in motor in 1971.

I believe that horsepower while important, is not the only indicator at all. I will look back through the thread during out next snow storm. 84 stands! Thank you.

woobs

02-12-2014, 07:48 AM

Why would he lie?

See, you assume someone would lie... I believe someone is mistaken. (But, you could be right...the male ego is a strange thing).

The 225Hp boat producing 77mph is totally meaningless in the entire conversation EXCEPT as a benchmark from which to estimate a similiar boats performance. I do not have a problem with #452 posting 68mph...but, again it has no bearing on the 84mph claim. They are totally seperate events and do not support each other. So what you are left with is a guy that thought he did 84mph... when he most likley didn't. And his buddy... where you don't really know what he saw or didn't see.

The hydroplane record is on point and relevant as the powerplant is the closest comparison we have to a Super Strangler. Wherever the 105 with a 20cid motor came from...it has no bearing on this event as I'm positive the circumstances are VERY different and there are no common elements of comparison.

So yes, I've put it behind me.

Just Say N20

02-12-2014, 07:50 AM

Why would he lie.

Seriously?

The hydroplane stuff is a small data point as Walin set another world record where he went 105mph with a 20cu in motor in 1971.

This is the kind of statement that seriously hurts credibility. When talking about speed records for watercraft, and ONLY mentioning the engine size suggests that is all that matters. . . .

. . . .obviously that package was very different than what we have been talking about.

However, pointing out that the same sized engine, as part of an ideal package (15', super light weight, "flying" tunnel hull) only runs 5 mph faster can be used as an important point of comparison.

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 08:06 AM

The 225Hp boat producing 77mph is totally meaningless in the entire conversation EXCEPT as a benchmark from which to estimate a similiar boats performance. I do not have a problem with #452 posting 68mph...but, again it has no bearing on the 84mph claim. They are totally seperate events and do not support each other.

So if I understand, you have now dismissed not one, but two of the same boats with clocked speeds as being meaningless in supporting another claimed speed? IMO this is the most confusing post in this entire Winter time thread.

Utterly amazing. Thank you.

ps: no problem being "done' .....cheers

woobs

02-12-2014, 08:06 AM

I believe that horsepower while important, is not the only indicator at all.

If we assume the hulls to be comparible and therefore, roughly equal and we know the power output, the only factor left is the low drag foot.

As we dont have the data required to calculate every nuance, we must consider the performance difference as a whole.

Because that difference was expressed as 35Hp + 7mph we convert (as best we can) the latter 7mph, to an estimated HP figure as a common denominator and get 80Hp.

This does not mean that HP is the only factor. It simply represents an estimate of the amount of work that is required for the SS to elevate the performance of the 77mph mark to 84mph given the relative starting points. (190Hp vs, 225Hp).

note** "amount of work" can mean addition of power or reduction of equivilent drag.

With the 100cid hydroplane comparison the powerplants will share similar power output and hydrodynamic properties (foot and all) as they are both racers designed for the same purpose. Here the variable is the boat.

When you compare what it takes to push a 15' purpose built lightweight racing hydro to a record speed of 88.9mph with what it would take to push a 16' production v bottom with 2 occupants to a similar speed... well, I think it's hard to deny it's even close.

BTW: I really am done with this.

woobs

02-12-2014, 08:16 AM

So if I understand, you have now dismissed not one, but two of the same boats with clocked speeds as being meaningless in supporting another claimed speed? IMO this is the most confusing post in this entire Winter time thread. Amazing. Thank you.

Utterly amazing? I suppose some people are easily amazed. This is pretty simple stuff though.

We are comparing apples and oranges at best.

We have identifed the 77mph boat as the closest comparison available and deemed it to be the benchmark. ALL of our discussions have revolved around the "proof" that this 16 did a known 77mph with a 225 wacker.

If the 225Merc did 77mph, and this is known to be possible...there is no need to add 2 other boats which are not "the same".

To use 3 control boats just confuses the issue. Therefore, the other 2 claims are irrelivent for the purpose of comparison.

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 08:30 AM

Utterly amazing? I suppose some people are easily amazed. This is pretty simple stuff though. We are comparing apples and oranges at best. We have identifed the 77mph boat as the closest comparison available and deemed it to be the benchmark. ALL of our discussions have revolved around the "proof" that this 16 did a known 77mph with a 225 wacker. If the 225Merc did 77mph, and this is known to be possible...there is no need to add 2 other boats which are not "the same". To use 3 control boats just confuses the issue. Therefore, the other 2 claims are irrelivent for the purpose of comparison.

With all due respect (I mean that) that is a scientists statement if I ever heard one. If folks agree with that, then this entire site would have 75% less posted educational content over the last decade. I think that you see 84mph on the horizon, and your trying to put some distance between it and you. No worries on that, I get it. I would never have thought that the 225 Merc boat could lay down 77 when the best I can get is 79 but I enjoyed the real world education I got on David's 16 as the thread unfolded. I believe even N20 said he thought there was a 30% chance David did 77 with 225hp and I respect his opinion because he has experience with wackers and 16s. Makes me wonder what's wrong with my boat.

In any event I agree we can drop the above point as we clearly disagree. Winter can't end soon enough.

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 08:36 AM

Blackhawk drive location .......... this will lead into the parasitic drag discussion or in the BH's case lack thereof.

woobs

02-12-2014, 09:04 AM

With all due respect (I mean that) that is a scientists statement if I ever heard one. If by that you mean it is logical and well thought out...Thank-you

If folks agree with that, then this entire site would have 75% less posted educational content over the last decade. Do you mean to say that folks throw up as much sh*te against the wall as possible to see what sticks?

I think that you see 84mph on the horizon, and your trying to put some distance between it and you. Although I've attempted to EXPLAIN what I think, I can see you have no idea what that is. There's no believeable 84 (except maybe in your mind) anywhere near. I don't require distance from the claim...I'm done with the merry-go-round of unconnected "factoids" lumped together without reasoning or explanation and backed with imagined tenure. AND I have enough information to cast more than serious doubt it happened... with all due respect.

BTW: I have NO skin in the game and couldn't care if it was proved or disproved. I didn't make the claim and I'm not the person offering it up. The burden of proof is not on me...although I'm pretty sure my position as stated gives a real good argument as to why it didn't happen.

No worries on that, I get it. Do you?

I would never have thought that the 225 Merc boat could lay down 77 when the best I can get is 79 but I enjoyed the real world education I got on David's 16 as the thread unfolded.Well, there's nothing better that "real world"...I think I mentioned that at the start of this thread. Are you saying that with all your o/b experience that you were wrong about the 77 and that experience was unable to be applied successfully in the scenario?

I believe even N20 said he thought there was a 30% chance David did 77 with 225hp and I respect his opinion because he has experience with wackers and 16s. Makes me wonder what's wrong with my boat. I respect N2O also but, I wouldn't hold him to a comment, or an estimate of a claim made before all the proof and pertenant information was laid on the table.

In any event I agree we can drop the above point as we clearly disagree. I'm not absolute on anything. I follow reasoning and proof. There is just no information to support your position, and what information has been thrown up on the wall just does not stick as it is all over the map and very little is actually on point. Not to mention what is there, has not been presented as a fluid thought process.

Winter can't end soon enough. I live in Canada, so I embrace 4 seasons.

Please don't tell me what I think. I know what I think.

But, please tell me why you are not at 100% ? You obviously have doubts.

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 09:12 AM

Please don't tell me what I think.

We agree to disagree. No worries. :yes:

woobs

02-12-2014, 09:30 AM

We agree to disagree. No worries. :yes:

Greg, I'd LOVE to agree with you... you just have not made a believable case. I agree at this point we have different opinions. Cheers :drunk:

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 09:32 AM

But, please tell me why you are not at 100% ? You obviously have doubts.

Hey, I thought you were out? Don't jump ahead :wink:

Depth and aspect ratio is the "short" answer but I'm now at 90% probability that Dr. Lou did it based on the last handful of posts along with 77.7mph by Puerto Rico and an "easy" 68mph by #452. Thank you.

woobs

02-12-2014, 09:34 AM

I'm now at 90% probability that Dr. Lou did it based on the last handful of posts along with 77.7mph by Puerto Rico and an "easy" 68mph by #452.

Okay, have fun.

zipper

02-12-2014, 09:44 AM

[QUOTE=Greg Guimond;648804] but I'm now at 90% probability QUOTE]

We all know you're going to go to 100 %.... so hurry up

dsparis

02-12-2014, 09:50 AM

Of course it will go 84. If a baby with 100 hp will do 42 the op's logic tells us that a baby with 200 hp will do 84. :yes:

Just Say N20

02-12-2014, 11:24 AM

[QUOTE=Greg Guimond;648804] but I'm now at 90% probability QUOTE]

We all know you're going to go to 100 %.... so hurry up

Zipper. If you want, edit this post adding a [/ immediately before the QUOTE] and it will post correctly.

It should look like this:

but I'm now at 90% probability

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 06:22 PM

Of course it will go 84. If a baby with 100 hp will do 42 the op's logic tells us that a baby with 200 hp will do 84. :yes:

Did you find out if your racer friend was working directly for OMC Race yet?
I don't believe anyone on this board is running a 100hp wacker on a 16. Back in the day there were many small wackers on the 16 OB Baby. There is however a gentleman running a 115 though and he clocks 46mph.

The 115 weighs in at about 415lbs. i was worried about the transom but it's still solid as a rock. i can run about 46 mph. its not that fast but it gets the job done. heres a pic.

ps:did you know that mine is the fastest currently running 16 OB Baby in North America? No one has ever been seen or produced pictures showing they are faster. Ever. That's next Winter's Banter Thread -WBT 2015. :rofl:

Greg Guimond

02-12-2014, 07:18 PM

I've never seen a guy use so much large font. I'll give you answers to your first tranche of comments below. There is nothing messy at all. The rest can come later ..........kinda as the snow falls lol

THESE NUMBERS ARE A LOGICAL MESS TO BEGIN WITH:
So, we have heard said (God knows based on what--I tried but couldn't find it) the bullet as "about 50%" of the total drag on the lower. And we have heard (similarly, God knows where from, but even more precisely) that the bullet and skeg are 61% of the drag on the lower.

The 50% for the bullet and the 11% for the skeg are from Mercury Performance at a conference they presented at in 2011

Where these estimates come from I haven't the faintest. I read again all the way from the first to the second and saw no sign of where they come from, nor of how/why one was based on gearcase-and-bullet versus just bullet.

With your depth of knowledge you should know that there are several pieces to an assembly. AV Plate, Strut, Bullet, and Skeg. In a hi-po OB app you have to consider all the pieces based on the set-up height

But setting aside their origin, nor do I have any idea that these figures even COULD make sense unless they referred to one specific family of similar drives.

Of course each lower unit is different, that forms the basis for Dr. Lou's claimed 84mph. The drive that Mercury was discussing was there consumer high horsepower OB lower unit although they did not specifically state the exact model.

Meaning, bullets vary radically in size from drive to drive where skegs probably would not vary nearly as much.

I'm not sure if you have any OB performance experience but skegs can actually vary a lot more than you might think. Length, width, leading edge thickness and trailing edge issues like torque tab, round edge and swept skeg etc.

So, EVEN IF the numbers above were right for some particular family of drives (say, similar in design to a stock Merc 225 ob), they should then be very wrong for a slick racing lower with a skinny bullet). Likewise, the ratio of bullet size to the rest of the drive, besides the skeg, should vary greatly from a consumer lower to a racing lower with a skinny bullet.

Your looking at this the wrong way and should probably follow the KISS principle at this juncture. Start with a L/U size and then ask "is smaller faster?" That gets you most of the way. I don't have the time here to get into aspect ratio etc. If you agree that all other things being equal smaller is faster then ask yourself this simple question. What is the diameter of the 2004 Mercury 225 TM bullet and then, what is the diameter of the Evinrude 1975 Super Strangler bullet?

Now, if you don't agree that a smaller gearcase is faster, well .............. I'm not sure how to help. Thank you. Gotta go.

Ghost

02-12-2014, 08:22 PM

Of course I agree that smaller should make for less drag. And it's great to hear a source for the 50% and 11% numbers. But I think you missed my point on what's a mess because you don't agree it is a mess. It's like you had two animals and said neck drag was 5% and head drag was 15%. But one animal was a person and the other was a giraffe. The percentages only CAN make sense in the context of one or the other, since the relative sizes of the many body components are not the same (in fact, they are radically different) in the two cases.

And even more important, those numbers don't help much anyway in estimating speed, because they are totally decoupled to the TOTAL drag.

So, I presume the merc study numbers refer to a typical outboard lower, and are nothing like the SS, with its much sleeker bullet (and, taking your word for it, skeg.). Making the 50 and 61% figures WAAAY off for the super strangler. Not to mention that whatever the real figures are for the super strangler, they still wouldn't tell us much about speed because we have no way to fit them into the total drag. We might know we lopped off half of some body part, but we don't know if it was half a toe or half a leg. So we have no idea how much the total drag is reduced, and this we have no idea how much speed might increase.

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 06:48 AM

Hmmm. Your comments are well thought out AND no big font! I have to think through how you are describing the situation and absorb. Hmmmm. I'm going to get back to you on this one.

In the meantime Ghost, do you know the diameter of the Mercury TM gearcase bullet that the Puerto Rico 16 is running 2" below the keel line?

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 07:03 AM

We all know you're going to go to 100 %.... so hurry up

Don't be so sure, that last 10% is a rough one. It's like a marathon :hyper:

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 07:13 AM

First car motor guy to name who's 16 this is gets a new snow shovel and ice pick ..........he's running a 6 degree angle of attack :yes:

Ed Donnelly

02-13-2014, 08:14 AM

He is the guy driving the boat .Ed

I will P.M. you my address unless you want to hand deliver it.
At 84 m.p.h. I am 8 hrs and 53 minutes away, excluding border crossing time...Ed

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 08:27 AM

Good God man, where the heck do you live. Even LaLa Land isn't that far. And btw it's 90% of 84mph ........... Sir 100MPH :superman:

Ghost

02-13-2014, 10:29 AM

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 02:31 PM

Seriously?

This is the kind of statement that seriously hurts credibility. When talking about speed records for watercraft, and ONLY mentioning the engine size suggests that is all that matters. . . . . . . .obviously that package was very different than what we have been talking about.

However, pointing out that the same sized engine, as part of an ideal package (15', super light weight, "flying" tunnel hull) only runs 5 mph faster can be used as an important point of comparison.

Yes, seriously. If someone asks you in ten years how fast your 16 went on its best run, would you personally make up a number? Dr. Lou is 60ish, accomplished professionally, and a boat guy. He's had everything from a Magnum Missile to a 45ZX. In other words, he's no punk wearing a wife beater and talkin out his arse after too many Coors in cans. I doubt he has any reason to make up a number to feel good. The other thing is he relayed the same scenario and 84mph speed in early 2012 and then again in middle 2013, about 18 months later. While possible, I'd think it would be tough to recreate an identical scenario a year and a half later without screwing up some of the details.

The caveat to all of the above is that he could be playing yours truly just like Madoff did to so many :(

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 02:51 PM

And as we come back to drag, remember that the e-drive and Alpha SS are so relatively effective, because they are slippery compared to what they replace, BUT they are still buried deep in the water, because for all practical purposes, stern drives are not vertically adjustable. Thus the only real way to reduce drag is by making a smaller, hydro-dynamically better shape.

At the high prop shaft location these super fast outboards are running, lower unit drag is almost completely eliminated because the gear case is almost completely out of the water. How "slippery" a drive is becomes a non-issue when it is no longer running through the water. This is why I have difficulty assigning a high drag number like 50% being attributable to the drive. I don't know if that is true on a stern drive running full depth, but I know it can't possibly be true if only the bottom of the gear case is even in the water. I suppose if you ran a 36" skeg below the gear case it would be significant, but that isn't the case.

You are making some sense on lower unit drag. There is one exception though that I'm not sure you considered Bill. On an OB 16 lower unit drag is NOT almost completely eliminated, even at 70mph and faster. The 1975 16 OB Baby is running it's gearcase at 2" below the keel. At 2" there is still a lot of gearcase in the water and of course the entire skeg. How much gearcase is in the water? I would think almost all of the bullet, certainly 3/4. Now the fact Merc assigned 50% to the overall pie is based on a drive that is lower than 2", I agree with you there and I'm sure that the 50% is probably almost identical if you were running a stern drive Bravo at full depth. Now onto the skeg. The one thing for sure is that with the #452 16, the 1975 Puerto Rico 16, or Gerry Walin/Doc Lou's 1965 16 each of the respective skegs are in the drink 100%. The point is that the Merc was not surfacing it's drive. Any drive that I have ever seen (your boats may prove me wrong?) have to run even with the keel to surface and many are running 1" above it.

So then you have three things -

How thick are the two skegs?
Can the Super Strangler run higher than 2" below the keel line like the Merc?
If conservatively say 50% of the bullet is in the water and not even 75%, what are the diameters of the Merc bullet versus the Super Strangler bullet?

These types of things can add up very quickly when you are searching for top speeds.

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 03:27 PM

The hydroplane stuff is a small data point as Walin set another world record where he went 105mph with a 20cu in motor in 1971.QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Just Say N20;648793]This is the kind of statement that seriously hurts credibility. When talking about speed records for watercraft, and ONLY mentioning the engine size suggests that is all that matters. . . .. . . .obviously that package was very different than what we have been talking about. However, pointing out that the same sized engine, as part of an ideal package (15', super light weight, "flying" tunnel hull) only runs 5 mph faster can be used as an important point of comparison.

The boat that Walin set the record in was 11' long. The tunnel that woobs found data on was 15' long. The 11' boat went 105mph with 20cu in. woobs boat went 88mph with 100cu in or 5 times as much power. Now I'm sure woobs did not search long for his 88mph boat so there could be bigger speeds if you poked around and understood where to look. But I digress :)

Just Say N20

02-13-2014, 04:11 PM

If someone asks you in ten years how fast your 16 went on its best run, would you personally make up a number?:(

In my 40 adult years of boating, having lived/boated in NY, FL, TX, IL, WI, MI, and owned three fast wacker boats, and three Donzi Classics (one X18 with a healthy engine, one 18 2+3 with a 120 shot of Nitrous, and one 16 with the Keith Eickert 409). It is safe to say I have done a decent amount of associating with hi-performance boaters.

Up until the general availability of GPS, I can count on 1 finger the people I knew who were honest about the top speed of their hi-performance boat.

Since GPS has become fairly common place, you would think that everyone would be honest about their boat's top speed, just because it is so easy to accurately test. I can now say about 50% of the people I personally know and have boated with are honest, or let me rephrase that, 50% of the people I know and have boated with are accurate regarding top speed. I think some know better than to trust their pitot tube speedo, but they like the number better than what the GPS says, so they run with it. Others lie through their teeth, for whatever reason.

I'm not calling the 84 mph guy a liar. I'm just saying that with 40 years of making boats go fast worth of experience, beginning with a 10' Class D utility with a 20 hp Merc, to my current Donzi, I am having a hard time getting my head around an outboard powered Donzi Classic 16 with an unmodified bottom running 84 mph, much less with a 99 cubic inch engine. And don't misunderstand, I LOVE the old SS V4 engine. I was a HUGE fan. I attended many races back in the mid to late 60s watching when almost all the outboards were running exhaust trumpets. But, I just don't see it.

Greg Guimond

02-13-2014, 10:08 PM

Ok....reasonable.

What are your feelings, based on your OB experience, about David in Puerto Rico with a 2004 Mercury 225 EFI running a TM L/U 2" below the keel line and pushing his 1975 16 OB Baby to 77.7mph?

Just Say N20

02-14-2014, 06:43 AM

I believe that. He was initially getting low 70's out of the boat, then with more setup tweeting, gradually got the speed up to 77.7. He is also running in salt water at sea level. I realize that the Dr. was also running in those conditions.

Isn't the V6 225 Merc something like 185 cubic inch (3032 cc) displacement? That is almost 2X of the SSV4.

And I keep going back to my Laser with the V6, 200 hp Evinrude. If I was running in conditions where it was maxing out at 84 mph, and added a rider, I lost at least 3 mph. Again, this was a super light weight, pad bottom, notched transom, engine on jackplate, set up. His claim goes again all my personal boating experience.

In my eyes, he would have had to have had some mystically magic set up to run 84 with that package. And then temporarily suspended physics to do it again with another rider on board.

Greg Guimond

02-14-2014, 09:16 AM

I think that Dr. Lou's comment about having a rider on board was just a general one. He probably got 80 and it was enough of an eye opener for Osiriz Perez to realize that the GPS 84 was the real deal. As a small sidebar, I always found it interesting on this site how many members complained about the "chine walk problems" of a 16. It seems that as soon as guys upgraded to Alpha SS drives, with the completely different profile and the higher mounting those handling problems went away at 70mph and above. Forrest seems to be one example (10mph faster than Matty) and Parnell broke 80mph with his Alpha SS I believe and zero chine walk.

And then you have Rootsy. Rootsy is, in my opinion, a key to Dr. Lou's claim of 84 using just a 200hp OB as much as David in Puerto Rico doing 77mph with his 16 Baby and a 225hp OB is. Your boat Bill does 65mph with 400hp. Rootsy's boat did 80mph with 400hp. Holy crap, 15mph more, that's insane right just based on an Alpha SS drive footprint? Impossible. Then look at Parnell, he needs 500hp (another 100hp) to go the same 80mph as Rootsy. Why? A somewhat heavier boat and also a slightly different drive than what Rootsy ran. I suspect most of the folks reading this thread don't even know the drive that Rootsy ran.

So back to Rootsy at 80mph, the Puerto Rico 16 OB at 77mph, and Dr. Lou's '65 at a claimed 84mph. First take the Puerto Rico 16. All through this thread there were very heavy doubters, the heaviest of which was Buizilla about 77mph. But in the end 225hp and 77mph was pretty validated with the stock 225 Merc OB. No chine walking either because the drive was pretty high with the propshaft 2" below the 16 OB's keel. Then, throughout this entire thread no one has known the dimensions of the lower unit's on #452's Johnson 210, Puerto Rico's Merc 225, or Gerry Walin/Dr. Lou's Evinrude Super Strangler Race 200. No one, not even Ghost.

There are a lot of guys arguing against Dr. Lou (and me) yet none of them have even owned a 16 Ski Sporter, never mind having run any high performance OB hulls. I find that, well..... peculiar at best. Everyone has been looking at torque and cubic inches and other tunnel boats etc, etc. Torque doesn't matter IMO. Torque gets you there faster, HP and RPM is what gives you top end and hold 'em speed once you are there. If one motor makes 200hp and one motor makes 225hp that's where it starts and ends. Anyone who has the data differently I'd be happy to learn something. I'm a hack and certainly no MIT expert on torque versus horsepower. I therefore agree with woobs on only one thing, that you have to factor in 25hp less. Now keep in mind that the '75 Puerto Rico 16 Baby should be heavier than Dr. Lou's '65 boat. Matty has said that the early 16's were lighter and he is kinda the archivist on this detail stuff. Dr. Lou also said that he had to repair the deck and front hull sides of Walin's 16 several times so the glass must have been pretty thin in the bow area. Why? Because the very early 16 Ski Sporters had a lighter layup as Matty has researched over the years. And then of course Doc Lou's boat is lighter just because of the weight of a Super Strangler versus the weight of a 2004 Merc 225 is night and day. That's a fact. Woobs said that weight difference has negligible impact on top speed. I disagree 100%. Absolutely no way that is the case at these speeds. You just said that when you added a passenger you lost 3mph. Weight matters big time with wackers. The rule of thumb in this size class V is 100lbs = 1mph up or down. If Dr. Lou's boat was 354lbs lighter (to be verified by woobs weighing his boat and it being 1,000lbs) than the Puerto Rico 16 that could buy Lou 3mph roughly. You have seen this with your boats, and I have seen this with my 16 OB's up close and factual above 70mph.

How did Rootsy go 15 mph faster with the same horsepower? What's so unique about the Super Strangler gearcase? More on that in the next chapter of Banter Line, airing live from LaLa Land in the Northwest Territories.

Just Say N20

02-14-2014, 10:04 AM

No doubt the lower unit plays a very big part in top speed.

This is in no way meant as anything other than a statement. No chest pounding or anything like that. I never saw any numbers on Rootsy's engine. I don't know that it was ever dyno'd. I have seen the numbers on my engine, and I believe mine might have a slight advantage in both hp and torque. Which makes the 15 mph difference hurt even more. But, I live with absolutely no concern regarding my outdrive's health. And my boat cruises effortlessly at 50, which was the design goal all along.

Greg Guimond

02-15-2014, 11:39 AM

Yep, I'm with you, rather be running 'em then fixing 'em. This year for me was a lot of fixin. Here is Rootsy's engine detail. His best run ever was 81.3mph - "RW Engineering Co 350 @ 413 hp/436 ft-lb corrected on a Land and Sea engine dyno". This shows how very important the lower unit is to top speeds especially when compared to Parnell's boat doing 80 with 500hp.

Now the Merc 225 running 2" below the keel line is impressive for that particular gearcase, but the Super Strangler's lower unit is even more impressive. Here is a chart that shows the differences in hydrodynamic drag impact using a Sporty as the l/u as well as two photos that show gearcases running at 1" above the keel in surfacing mode to get an idea of how much case is in the water. The Super Strangler could not run this high with no setback, but it could run higher than the Merc 225 for sure. The weight difference of the two 16 boats knocks out the 25hp to neutral/equal.

IMO your down to gearcase height and gearcase drag and can that equate to 7mph on the 16 OBs.

On the I/O 16 I have to find out how low Rootsy's propshaft was below his keel line. Not sure on that stat. I do know that Rootsy sourced a very specific gearcase to break 80mph.

Ghost

02-15-2014, 12:07 PM

Some questions leap to mind.

Where does that graph come from?

What are the units on the y axis?

Grizz said dr Lou was using a 2-blade prop at one time. Would a 2-blade typically be used fully submerged or partially submerged?

dsparis

02-15-2014, 01:15 PM

So now this enigma of a boat was surfacing a 2 blade prop ? hahahahaha

Greg Guimond

02-15-2014, 09:35 PM

Some questions leap to mind. Grizz said dr Lou was using a 2-blade prop at one time?

So now this enigma of a boat was surfacing a 2 blade prop ? hahahahaha

You two boys have lost me. Where is the Grizz 2 blade prop coming from? The late Super Stranglers came with a 23/25 Cleaver and who knows what else Gerry Walin had or what the Doc was running in 1996. dsparis, aren't you supposed to be checking with your race friend on who he was working for/with at OMC Race? You know the guy with the dyno hp figures that were wrong. hahahahaha, whatever that means, I've inhaled a lot of blue smoke over the years ya know. Ghost I'll answer the other questions also later.

Below is the factory tear sheet excerpt for the Super Strangler's race props from 1975 which are 12" diameter. Also, some used SS props that just came up for sale last year. I'm no prop ace but I believe that cleavers were the hot ticket back in the day if you wanted to semi surface a wacker. Some of you guys will know better as that's before my time. My best runs have come with 3 blade Tempest+ A45s, closely followed by what Grizz had helped me with and then sold me, the Turbo Fusion. Tempest+ (14.5" diameter) was 79mph, Fusion was 76mph on my 16. I think the consensus opinion is 3 blades are faster than four but I could be wrong.

Greg Guimond

02-15-2014, 11:29 PM

Here's an example of a prop that would have been used for the 1:1 Sprint gearcase. I would assume that the Clubfoot gearcase would have also used a cleaver.

Greg Guimond

02-16-2014, 12:02 AM

I wouldn't get hung up on the props Ghost. The real focus is lower units. What gearcase did Rootsy choose and how does the Merc 225 gearcase compare to the Super Strangler. After all we still have to find that 7mph.

Ghost

02-16-2014, 04:02 AM

You two boys have lost me. Where is the Grizz 2 blade prop coming from?

Oops, looks like it was Tito, not Grizz. Greg, you posted this quote, somewhere around 188 in this thread. Here is the text:

One thing is for sure, “1965 OB1” was capable as shown by the note below from back in 2001 according to Tito below.

10-03-2001

Tito

Join Date: Oct 2000

Posts: 21

BIG GRIZZLY I know Dr 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. My boat did an honest (and scary) 65 on my gps. 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. I also was a non-believer. He also owns a wicked 45zx and has a SH*T load of toys.

__________________

Tito

Ghost

02-16-2014, 04:09 AM

I wouldn't get hung up on the props Ghost.

OFCOLYD, the point of the question about two-blade props is to see if Tito's note suggests anything about the prop shaft height Lou was likely to be running. And thus how much lower was in the water.

The point of the other questions is to understand the graph you posted.

Greg Guimond

02-16-2014, 08:38 AM

OFCOLYD, the point of the question about two-blade props is to see if Tito's note suggests anything about the prop shaft height Lou was likely to be running. And thus how much lower was in the water.

The point of the other questions is to understand the graph you posted.

Dumb? You probably should have just asked about prop shaft height lol. I don't know anything about 2 blades as it relates to prop shaft height. Dr. Lou said that he had both 2 and 3 blade props. I would think the cleaver that was on the factory tear sheet is the most likely to surface. Cleavers like to run very high as I've been told. If the Tempest Plus was 2" below the keel of the Puerto Rico 16, you could run a cleaver equal or higher for sure and you would still have a lot of gearcase in the water. 1" below the keel to even would be my guess based on my experience but hard to say as these things get dialed in over 1/4" increments at those high speeds.

Again, the photos a few posts back are of gearcases that are 1" above the keel line and the case is still creating drag. Now the Blackhawk is the extreme example of surfacing. No gearcase in the water, just props at speed. In that case I believe the propshafts centerline are well above the keel line on a 16, 18, 22 but other guys who own them would know for sure on that.

The left side of the graph is hydrodynamic drag pressure in lbs to give you boys in Missouri a picture to kinda eyeball around the fire :rolleyes:

Ghost

02-16-2014, 09:36 AM

Dumb? You probably should have just asked about prop shaft height lol. I don't know anything about two blades as it relates to prop shaft height. Dr. Lou said that he had both 2 and 3 blade props. I would think the cleaver that was on the factory tear sheet is the most likely to surface. Cleavers like to run very high as I've been told. If the Tempest Plus was 2" below the keel of the Puerto Rico 16, you could run a cleaver equal or higher for sure and you would still have a lot of gearcase in the water. 1" below the keel to even would be my guess based on my experience but hard to say as these things get dialed in over 1/4" increments at those speeds.

Again, the photos are of cases that are 1" above the keel and the case is still creating drag. The Blackhawk is the extreme example of surfacing. No gearcase in the water, just props at speed. In that case I believe the propshafts centerline are well above the keel line on a 16, 18, 22 but other guys who own them would know for sure on that.

The left side of the graph is hydrodynamic drag pressure in lbs to give you boys in Missouri a picture to kinda eyeball around the fire :rolleyes:

Where'd the graph come from? (Actually, it was 'you dingbat'. :) )

Maybe you should think more about the prop. Tito said Lou was running it when he saw the boat, and that it was much faster than 65. Read a few threads on other site and some folks say their 2-blades don't accelerate worth a damn and vibrate a lot, but run 5-7 mph top end faster than anything else they try.

Ed Donnelly

02-16-2014, 02:37 PM

A little off topic but what is the average weight of a
16 O B with say a 200 h p motor and single axle trailer???...Ed

BUIZILLA

02-16-2014, 08:58 PM

mine is 3000# on the button w/ 65 gal fuel

Greg Guimond

02-16-2014, 09:05 PM

A little off topic but what is the average weight of a 16 O B with say a 200 h p motor and single axle trailer???...Ed

You have many different weights for a 200hp OB (depending on the model and year) and a single axle trailer. It would depend on what motor and what the trailer was built out of.
The Gerry Walin 1965 OB is estimated at 1600lbs with the motor, driver and 20 gallons of gas but NO trailer. That is based on woobs weighing his early 16 hull naked this coming Summer and it coming in at 1,000lbs. If it's 900lbs (which it should be as an early hull) then the total weight would drop to 1500lbs.

Greg Guimond

02-16-2014, 09:20 PM

Where'd the graph come from? Maybe you should think more about the prop. Tito said Lou was running it when he saw the boat, and that it was much faster than 65. Read a few threads on other site and some folks say their 2-blades don't accelerate worth a damn and vibrate a lot, but run 5-7 mph top end faster than anything else they try.

My back is hurtin from carrying ya Ghost. The graph above is from a marine engineer that does extensive work with smaller high performance OB hulls. I had engaged him to do some consulting for me when we were noodling the design specifics for how to approach a 16 wacker build. That included dimensions, weights and wetted surface variables as well as a bunch of other blah, blah "what if" stuff. The picture shows different speeds and the comensurate steeper attack angles. Standard stuff when pissing away $ trying to get a slow hull to go reasonably fast. On the prop, I really don't attach much to that. Dr. Lou obviously had figured out what prop worked best for him to chase the big speed #. To get 84mph out of 200hp he had to be running equal or higher than 2" below the keel line like the Merc 225 was running when it GPS'd 77.7mph :yes:

Greg Guimond

02-16-2014, 10:06 PM

Here is the full post from the Big Bomp. He was experimenting consistently with prop shaft height with his 2004 Merc 225 EFI .........74.4mph with it 6" below and 77.7mph with it at 2" below.

I have a 1975 Donzi 16 OB with a 225 Merc 3.0L. My best run is 74.4mph @5400 rpm with a 3 blade Tempest Plus 27, high trim. The engine max rpms is 5750. My 74.4 run have the top of the torpedo 6 inches bellow the hull. What prop I need for reach 80mph. Any advise is welcome. I raise the jackplate to the highest position , The top of the gearcase torpedo is now 2 inches below the hull bottom. run today with 1/4 of gas at a higher trim than the last run (see pics). 2004Merc 225run 77.7 @5750 rpms (overspeed alarm sound) Have a slip of 8.3% and run the other way 76.2. , believe I need to raise the engine a little more in the jackplate to get more prop out of the water without loose the grip. I try to run one time at maximun height but dont work. I will try a 1/2 inch at a time. I considere a Tempest plus 28 Lab.

Ghost

02-16-2014, 10:26 PM

Wait a sec

Ghost

02-16-2014, 10:34 PM

Ed Donnelly

02-17-2014, 01:35 AM

Thanks Buizilla. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for....Ed

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 09:13 AM

I think you're underestimating the prop. 5-7 mph top end tells a lot. I'm up to 65%. This is all about a rare racing prop mixed with a light boat and maybe 2 mph of current. I wasn't kidding about Colin Chapman, see my transom for specifics. We know it was way above 65, what's 'way'? For me, the question is whether it could be 210-215 hp, as the rest becomes instantly pretty doable. The realism is becoming possible.

A couple of comments. At these speeds as I have said throughout this thread, lower unit drag plays a much bigger role than anyone here considered. Folks who were/are/will be throwin the darts of doubt are focused on horsepower because that is always the foremost thought with car motor guys. That is understandable given there are so few options for you all to adjust the drive depth. This is why from the start of this thread I thought it was intriguing and possible for Lou to pull 84mph with a Super Strangler 8 Pumper Race.

I don't understand your comment about "way above 65" so explain that. Remember, you have three things going on..........

- Dr. Lou, a dormant board member here, claiming 84mph in 1996 in Gerry Walin's purported 1965 "OB#1"
- Dr. Lou claiming when he got 84mph he was in Miami Bay racing a guy named Osiris Perez (aka Chief) who was in his own boat and taunting Lou
- Tito (entirely different dude than Osiris Perez) who is also a dormant board member here and on a totally different day got his Donzi I/O smoked by Dr. Lou's 16

For the record, Dr. Lou Benz never said, and I never asked him specifically, what exact prop he was running when he clocked 84mph that day. I don't know anything about 2 blade props, so I can't add any value on that. Zilch. I do know that I found it interesting that the Super Strangler was offered from OMC race with published Cleaver options out of the box to privateer teams in 1975. Then, twenty years later Cleavers were still on the boating scene and used by OB guys. If Grizz were still with us, he would be able to add color to how long Cleavers held there own for performance purposes. I believe that the Blackhawk drive depends on Cleaver style props to surface to this day but I could be wrong.

Ghost

02-17-2014, 09:24 AM

Tito was doing 65 and said the ob was way faster. He also said Lou was running a 2-blade at the time.

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 09:36 AM

Gotcha.

Here are a few comments about prop shaft distances below the keel line and the important associated results. I'm still trying to find out how far beneath the keel Rootsy's 16 prop shaft was to get 81mph with 413hp.

I have tested 18's with a 2" raised X-dimension and gained 4 mph. Also tested one 18 with a 3" raised X-dimension and gained 5 1/2 mph. over stock. In each case I was able to go up 1 prop size, Gained 300 rpm on the 2" and 450 rpm on the 3" I also noted that time to plane was virtually un-affected

MattM, all of the testing is done with a specially modified Bravo One drive that is cut 3" up, then welded back together from mercury, (not available to the public for sale) then we use the latham spacers to lower it accordingly, 1/2" thru 2" down. Hope this helps you.

mattyboy

02-17-2014, 09:56 AM

Tito was doing 65 and said the ob was way faster. He also said Lou was running a 2-blade at the time.

besides everything else I have a problem believing in this thread

this is just one

the 1970 HM 16 doing 65 would need to be on it's A game and be modified above stock to get this number. go back to 1995 prop technology no solas so just an ultra

the biggest motor in a 1970 HM 16 would be a 351 putting out 290 hp mated to a 250 or 270 drive no trim unless it has a newer drive added to it Like Bill's 16 he has a good prop and trim and 400 + HP to get him in the mid 60's

a 16 Scary at 65 hell yeah bean there done that, got the skid marks at 55 mph with what was the best volvo performance prop at the time in a 351 HM 16

will an OB baby make an HM I/O boat look slow yeah John B's baby would always pass me by but I never got the chance to run him with the solas. A typical 1970 HM 16 is a mid 50's boat in 1995 so if Lou is running mid 60's he is blowing by an I/O 16.

Just Say N20

02-17-2014, 11:46 AM

Well said Matty.

My thoughts exactly. My first thought was that of significant skepticism about such an I/O running an honest 65.

Ghost

02-17-2014, 12:07 PM

...go back to 1995 prop technology no solas so just an ultra

Tito's post is from 2001, so not necessarily I think. I don't know if we know more precisely when the meeting took place.

For me, the most compelling argument against is N2O's experience with the 450 lb tunnel hull boat, as a comparison.

On the pro side, it seems that heavier boats have made it to mid-high 70s. With weight savings and a sleeker lower, I could imagine keeping pace with the heavier boat with a 225. So, IF there is any 5-7 mph magic in a two-blade prop that is hopelessly impractical (between vibration and terribly slow acceleration) and was only once run long enough at scary-wide-open to reach top speed, then that might make 82 reachable. And 82 is the magic number, not 84, if Lou only white knuckled it once with just himself in the boat, which it sounds like might be the case. Because if one assumes the gps is right on speed over ground, current and wind could easily account for 2mph of high-side error on speed through the water.

if he claimed to be doing it all the time, then current and wind would sometimes help and sometimes hurt and sometimes neither. But if he really only left it pegged once for the long time needed to get all the way up to top speed, he might have gotten a one-time error to boost the number. (Assuming he didn't really claim to have hit the same mark with his passenger, just got fast enough to show him the ballpark.)

mattyboy

02-17-2014, 04:21 PM

Tito's post is from 2001, so not necessarily I think. I don't know if we know more precisely when the meeting took place.

For me, the most compelling argument against is N2O's experience with the 450 lb tunnel hull boat, as a comparison.

On the pro side, it seems that heavier boats have made it to mid-high 70s. With weight savings and a sleeker lower, I could imagine keeping pace with the heavier boat with a 225. So, IF there is any 5-7 mph magic in a two-blade prop that is hopelessly impractical (between vibration and terribly slow acceleration) and was only once run long enough at scary-wide-open to reach top speed, then that might make 82 reachable. And 82 is the magic number, not 84, if Lou only white knuckled it once with just himself in the boat, which it sounds like might be the case. Because if one assumes the gps is right on speed over ground, current and wind could easily account for 2mph of high-side error on speed through the water.

if he claimed to be doing it all the time, then current and wind would sometimes help and sometimes hurt and sometimes neither. But if he really only left it pegged once for the long time needed to get all the way up to top speed, he might have gotten a one-time error to boost the number. (Assuming he didn't really claim to have hit the same mark with his passenger, just got fast enough to show him the ballpark.)

1995 or 2001 doesn't really matter still no solas around I would think any older Volvo 16 owners would sell their soul to the devil to get to 65 mph

Ghost

02-17-2014, 06:23 PM

1995 or 2001 doesn't really matter still no solas around I would think any older Volvo 16 owners would sell their soul to the devil to get to 65 mph

Gotcha--interesting, thx.

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 07:08 PM

The good Doctor Lou said in a 2001 post there were a few LH OB's ............

My outboard is a 65 and I have seen two 67's and one 69 all have the steering on the left and all before 1971 have no storage compartments on the back.

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 07:28 PM

the 1970 HM 16 doing 65mph would need to be on it's A game and be modified above stock to get this number. the biggest motor in a 1970 HM 16 would be a 351 putting out 290 hp mated to a 250 or 270 drive no trim unless it has a newer drive added to it Like Bill's 16 he has a good prop and trim and 400 + HP to get him in the mid 60's

It's tough to say exactly what Tito had under the hood but if you want to hone in on Tito's 1970 Ski Sporter 16 if he had an E-drive would a well tuned HM351 do 65mph in Miami salt water?

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 07:34 PM

Tito was doing 65 and said the ob was way faster. He also said Lou was running a 2-blade at the time.

Correct, Tito did make a specific mention of the 2 blade but remember that was only 65mph ish. Tito was not present however when Dr. Lou laid down the 84mph claim. That was Osiris "Chief" Perez who evidently ate a slice of humble pie. I would really think the more likely prop for that top speed is the worked Cleaver. What does the Blackhawk use? They seem to surface well.

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 07:56 PM

For me, the most compelling argument against is N2O's experience with the 450 lb tunnel hull boat, as a comparison.

You have a lot of info packed into this sentence so perhaps N20 will come along and provide some specifics. The answers may be buried back in the thread but .....

What length Laser was it?
Laser's are not true tunnels, was it a Mod VP bottom or a Pad bottom?
Was the 450lbs a true scale weight like I weighed my 16 and did it include things like rigging, empty gas tank, interior, full paint and hydraulic steering?

Most important is what specific lower unit did Bill run to get 84mph and what was the prop shaft distance below the keel line?

Ghost

02-17-2014, 08:00 PM

Correct, Tito did make a specific mention of the 2 blade but remember that was only 65mph ish. Tito was not present however when Dr. Lou laid down the 84mph claim. That was Osiris "Chief" Perez who ate a slice of humble pie. I would really think the more likely prop for that top speed is the worked Cleaver. Why does the Blackhawk use Cleavers? They seem to surface well.

Is there any evidence Lou ran any prop besides the 2-blade?

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 08:03 PM

Yes, he said he had both 2 and 3 blade props when he bought the boat from CW "Doc" Jones. I also believe that #452 ran a 3 blade to get 68mph with 210hp but Matty still has to check that with the current owner.

Ghost

02-17-2014, 08:06 PM

Other things can come into play. In some boats (Allison, STV, Hydrostream and Baja type outboard potato chip boats, and cats) aerodynamics begin to help. With 140 hp, my Laser ran 68. With a 200 V6 Evinrude, nose cone, jack plate, dual steering, it ran 84 mph any day of the week. So how could 60 hp more give me 16 more mph? I think a more slippery lower, and a "surfacing" engine height helped a lot, but also at 84 the boat was more flying than riding. There was only about a 6" wide by 8" long portion of the pad in the water, so there was almost no water drag. And a this was a 450 lbs rigged (no engine) hull weight.

I don't see a round keel, short strake, twice as heavy, less flyable hull shape running 84. And for the record, I LOVED the V4 Super Strangler engines. When I lived in Houston there was a guy out of Louisiana named Thibideau (or close to it) that raced against fields of competitors of almost total Tower of Power Mercs, and did very well. And the engine sounded like a really pissed off mosquito. It was awesome!

Here is what N2O said about it so far.

mattyboy

02-17-2014, 08:27 PM

Greg

my point here is anyone who has ever dealt with an early Volvo small block 16 knows how hard it is to gain 1 mph. and they know and remember every thing that helps or hurts. anyone who has done this will tell you exactly what they have and an e drive in 2001 was still the holy grail, so they would not just refer to their boat has just a HM 16. That's why Grizz spoke up in 2001 he of all people knew what it took to get a Volvo boat to go fast he knew what it took .

we will get a look back in time when Bill gets a chance to really run some of the props we traded. we can look at what he runs I think he has a 24 ultra that would be the best prop in 2001

I doubt tito had an e drive they only made a few 290 hp 16 most were 235 hp , we also know now that HM did nothing special as far as power was concerned they used basic car motors from the current market at the time so by late 1970 the 351 hp dropped to 260 hp

Bill has 400 + hp, headers and trim and a good prop tito would need all of that coming out of a small block ford and a Volvo 250 in 2001

Greg Guimond

02-17-2014, 08:50 PM

Sounds fair enough Matty. Here is what we know............

1. Bill N20 does 65mph with 400hp. Rootsy did 81mph with 400hp. That 15mph speed increase is because of a higher propshaft location and a radically slim gearcase that lowers drag. +15mph is epic.
2. Forrest's 16 does 70mph on GPS with 300hp. That is 10mph better than guys with the same 300hp because of propshaft height and the Alpha SS lower unit profile.
3. Puerto Rico 16 OB does 77mph with 225hp. Not many believed that except for me at the outset of this thread but now it's validated. Why 10mph faster than #452 with 210hp? Propshaft height is higher than #452.

Here I have posted a picture of the Mercury 225 Puerto Rico 16 OB set-up below. Remember this boat is heavier than Gerry Walins 1965 16 and the 1967 #452 you are researching. Getting to 84mph is largely about the L/U at these higher speeds as I've been saying. You boys have multiple examples of car motor 16's that run 6mph faster (e-drive), 10mph faster (Alpha SS), and 15mph faster (Rootsy custom L/U). Also you have the graph that shows the drag difference between 3" below the keel and 0" propshaft location. As you go faster the drag becomes an even greater part of the Dr. Lou puzzle. Also, as you go faster, the hull wetted surface on any 16 becomes less with about two feet of keel skimming the drink. It's about a 24"x31" contact patch as an estimate. How many times have owners on this board commented on "tap, tap, tap the trim button" to air the Ski Sporter hull out, increase the attack angle a few degrees, and find that sweet spot to get that last few mph?

Wait ....... woobs is outside the Kenworth with a C note lookin to get out of the Missouri cold :yes: