16 OB Baby Owners - How Many Are Left?

[Just Say N20]

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?

• My Laser was 16' as a model designation. I never measured it, but it certainly wasn't 17'.

• My Laser was a shallow V with a pad bottom, not a tunnel or modified tunnel like the STV that Roark Summerford made later.

• Weight; I was told by Roark, who made the boat, that it weighed between 450 - 500 lbs rigged, which would have been an aluminum fuel tank of around 22 gallons, 4 gauges, and a single cable steering. I never weighed the boat. I added a manual aluminum jack plate, foot throttle, and dual cable steering. The boat was very low profile, in that the rear bench seat back barely hit a passenger's belt line on their pants.

• The lower unit was stock for a V6 200, of about 1980 vintage. I added a nose cone that was NOT parabolic with a point extending out beyond the bullet of the gear case. The nose cone was straight vertical line up the front of the gear case with water intakes on the bottom front of the bullet, running plumbing up both sides to get enough water flow/pressure. I was running a teflon coated Stainless cleaver, 31".

• The highest I ran it, for max top speed was with the prop shaft level/even with the pad on the hull. This meant that half the lower unit gear case was in the water. Any higher and I lost water pressure, so testing without cooling was out of the question.

[Just Say N20]

My guess if we just got Bill's boat to a stock X in a bravo he would be a 70 mph boat an alpha might be a tad quicker but also a tad quicker to turn into kibbles and bits. then add a shorty or raise the x a bit and you gain 1-2 mph at a clip but going up in X on a 16 may mean raisng the roof as well.

Bravo with a shorty would be the way to go. The nut on top of my extremely low profile Coast Guard spark arresting air filter rubs against the underside of the hatch (and this is a PVC hatch, without the thickness of coring) ever so slightly. That engine isn't going up at all.

I believe that with a Bravo and a shorty, my boat would be a low-70s boat.

[Ghost]

Bravo with a shorty would be the way to go. The nut on top of my extremely low profile Coast Guard spark arresting air filter rubs against the underside of the hatch (and this is a PVC hatch, without the thickness of coring) ever so slightly. That engine isn't going up at all.

I believe that with a Bravo and a shorty, my boat would be a low-70s boat.

A mere 8-9k will get you there. ;)

Oh wait, the transom. Forget it.

[Just Say N20]

For around $1K there is a Volvo to MERC adapter plate. . . .

[Greg Guimond]

again a bit of apples and oranges if we look at just Bill and Rootsy for a moment there are some steps in between the two speed numbers and in the stock form the change in drive from volvo to merc helped with base wot speeds. a 4.3 newer omc/volvo or merc drive would perform as well as an volvo aq v8 with 300 hp and older prop technology lack of trim low to mid 50s. the 260 alpha 16 were solid high 50's to 60's boats right out of the package then start with the prop exhaust and hp mods and it climbs from there

yes raising the x and slimming the leg down all help .

My guess if we just got Bill's boat to a stock X in a bravo he would be a 70 mph boat an alpha might be a tad quicker but also a tad quicker to turn into kibbles and bits. then add a shorty or raise the x a bit and you gain 1-2 mph at a clip but going up in X on a 16 may mean raisng the roof as well.

I'm in agreement with your general comments but take a look, as you suggest, even more closely at Bill N2O and Rootsy as a very specific apples to apples comparison.

- Bill N20 has 400 hp, Rootsy has 400hp
- Bill has the lighter 1967 Ski Sporter, Rootsy has the later, heavier 1997 Ski Sporter
- Bill has a lower unit with a prop shaft depth assumed by me (needs confirming in the Spring) to be 9 3/4" below his 16s keel line, how many inches is Rootsy's propshaft below the keel? Does anyone happen to know?
- Bill runs the Volvo AQ290 drive which evidently has the highest parasitic drag on this thread yet his 400hp clocks 65mph. You believe a more slippery Bravo drive would yield an additional 5mph for 70mph.

A Bravo drives bullet is 4 3/4" diameter I believe. I don't know the bullet diameter on an AQ290/AQ280 but I bet it is the same and yes I completely know the case is only a part of the drag. But tell me, if Bill swaps to the Bravo, how many inches below the keel line will the Bravo drives propshaft be as compared to the 9 3/4" below the keel his propshaft is with the AQ290 currently?

Does he go from say 9 3/4" below the keel line to 5" below the keel line? :screwy:

[Greg Guimond]

Every time you raise the prop shaft - no matter what lower unit you run on a Donzi 16 - you gain speed
Every time you run a gearcase bullit with a narrower diameter on a Donzi 16 - you gain speed

The 8 carb Super Strangler Race OB is a 15" short shaft wacker providing a lower powerhead center of gravity than #452 or Puerto Rico 16, and is a LH spinner to neutralize a helm that favors left
The 99cuin Super Strangler Race OB on Dr. Lou's 1965 16 can run it's propshaft higher than any other lower unit referenced in this entire thread
The 200hp Super Strangler Race OB on Dr. Lou's 1965 16 has a narrower diameter gearcase bullit than any case in the history of 16's on this forum

Are these three facts worth 7mph? .... more? .... 84? .... a Kenworth's trailers warm floor?

[Greg Guimond]

But wait, there's more .............:thewave:

[mattyboy]

a lot to take in before the morning joe kicks in but in all of this for the record

can't really call an aq lower a bullet they are more shaped like a shotgun shell I have a naked lower in the garage I'll take some pics when I can

can't really say an AQ will run faster raised up at the time of their design they were made to be sunken into the water. they did not like disturbed water causing early designs to give them the cleanest water possible.I've been told they were meant to installed with the plate below the keel line. Smidgen here has said he raised his volvo drives on a race boat would like to know what props he ran. Bill has a cleaver prop was a merc prop with a volvo hub not sure he has run it yet i did but it didn't like the 250 with no trim.

what relation does diameter have in your propshaft location? the max diameter of the prop also has a say in that location the AQ will spin a 16 inch diameter prop don't think the alpha will or an OB .

Cleaver props are made to be run at the surface almost like a freestyle swimmer stroke cutting into the water than pulling and pushing while in the water then up and over. they work on drives that can get them up there so they run great on ob and arney's and BH's

[Greg Guimond]

I agree on the AQ's. You guys all run them so I kinda added them in for fun. They were clearly designed for slower speeds, probably 60mph and below? They are tough as nails but unfortunately like pushing a brick through the water. Back to the faster boats and drives, here is a little thesis from that I found interesting. Then again, I am from LaLa Land.



Thanks for the compliments. yes my SS hangs off the back of my 1997 16 donzi classic with a healthy 350 in front of it. the SS on the 16 classic is an instant stabilizer for an otherwise insane chine walking ride at 65+... it's also an instant 5 - 8 mph gain on average on the 16 and 18 classics... in my case with very minor motor modifications vs GEN II config, which didn't add much hp, i picked up an instant 8 mph right out of the box... i am currently up 10 mph over GEN II config and thats only cause i ran out of water and had to shut her down as the GPS was still climbing my drive is not powdercoated... i stripped her to bare aluminum, primed with it with PPG DPLF epoxy primer and shot it with PPG DCC Concept Acrylic Urethane... tough as nails and a helluva shine. as far as longevity... there is a guy here in michigan that will put em together and guarantee em to 550 hp... which i am skeptical of.. but i have 410 in front of mine and had zero issues all season. One of the tricks he performs is shotpeening the upper gearset to help stress relieve them. My SS with the ob gearcase was rebuilt by colabella perf before i purchased it. Apparently Randy installed 3.0 Litre Sportmaster gears in the lower and HD gears in the upper... which gives me a bastardized gear ratio of 1.59:1... but it's supposed to be STRONG... For those of you with SS's running outboard CLE cases.. see if you have a blow out ring on the gearcase... if you do, REMOVE it... it was an instant 2 mph gain for me with a hydromotive quad IV. Removing it also took my 16% - 33% (depended on rpm) slip on the quad IV O/T down to 9% across the board... if you have a naturally stable hull (unlike the 16 classic) remove the torque tab on the skeg of the outboard CLE cases too... True SS gearcases have NEITHER of these features. I have a neighbor with an SS on his 18 classic running high 70's with about the same HP as me and he has had ZERO issues with his drive... we both spin em 5500 - 6000 rpm... i turn the 25 quad IV O/T 5700 - 5800 and the 25 quad IV 5500...
you can find SS's on ebay now and again and some of the other boating sites in for sale sections... going rate is 1800 - 2500 bucks... all are right hand rotation.

[Greg Guimond]

a lot to take in before the morning joe kicks in. what relation does diameter have in your propshaft location? the max diameter of the prop also has a say in that location the AQ will spin a 16 inch diameter prop don't think the alpha will or an OB. Cleaver props are made to be run at the surface almost like a freestyle swimmer stroke cutting into the water than pulling and pushing while in the water then up and over. they work on drives that can get them up there so they run great on ob and arney's and BH's

Matty, on propellers, that can go any number of ways as you know. You can talk 2 blade, 3 blade, 4 blade, 5 blade, overhub, through hub, through hub with vent holes, diffuser rings and on and on. Throughout this thread I think it's an accurate assumption that to get the speeds being discussed each boat motor was propped (both style and size) for optimal top speeds. Would it take some time to get on plane, yes. I never cared a hoot how long it took to plane my boats if I was chasing bigger #'s. You are correct, Cleavers love to surface. I think Dr. Lou ran an OMC race Cleaver to get 84mph but he never specifically stated what prop.

On the faster side of things look at it this way........

Forrest - 300hp, (302 Ford) Alpha One SS Drive, Cleaver Prop, Touched 70mph on GPS
Rootsy - 400hp, Cleaver Prop, Touched 81mph on GPS

If we want to use Rootsy as a point of comparison I'd need to know where his Alpha prop shaft centerline is located below the 16s keel. You could then compare that to the more narrow E-drive and then the three OB lower units. Does anyone know how many inches below the keel Rootsy ran his drive? If your question Matty is specific to the diameter of the bullet at the prop end, that is a key to going fast. Very key as shown by the E-drive being higher and slimmer. Below is the Vermont E-drive. I added a skeg and rough measure to see how many inches below the keel it is. It also looks like the Anti Ventilation plate is about even with the keel on that early 16 Ski Sporter. I bet Rootsy's drive is even higher than this one.

[Greg Guimond]

• The lower unit was stock for a V6 200, of about 1980 vintage. I added a nose cone that was NOT parabolic with a point extending out beyond the bullet of the gear case. The nose cone was straight vertical line up the front of the gear case with water intakes on the bottom front of the bullet, running plumbing up both sides to get enough water flow/pressure. I was running a teflon coated Stainless cleaver, 31".

• The highest I ran it, for max top speed was with the prop shaft level/even with the pad on the hull. This meant that half the lower unit gear case was in the water. Any higher and I lost water pressure, so testing without cooling was out of the question.

I thought your Laser 16 was a pad bottom. This is interesting. Your OMC bullet's back end diameter is 4 1/4" so not slim. The nosecone install gave you water pressure at a higher level but the case was still 50% in the water at dead even with the pad. On the weight, general rule of thumb is 100lbs = 1mph. If you had 200hp with 500lbs versus 200hp with 1,000lbs with Doc Lou's 16 that is worth 5mph roughly.

The question is (first) can the Super Strangler gearcase run high enough? I see no reason why it can't. Second question is the Super Strangler gearcase slim enough to buy 5mph to make up for your hulls lower weight? If the answer to both are yes than your Laser doing 84mph does not really bury Dr. Lou from doing 84 in his Donzi 16.

Do you think the Super Strangler case is slim enough to pick up the needed speed?

[Greg Guimond]

Where do you think optimum should be? As I've yet to cut the hole on my 16 Ski Sporter, 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.


woobs gives some insights into how many inches below the keel line he is going to place his Alpha SS Drive propshaft on his 16 restore. 4 3/4" below the keel. I'm wondering how this compares to Rootsy's fully tested propshaft depth that achieved 81mph. Not sure what woobs target top speed is but it looks like he plans on chasing the big #?

[Phil S]

I thought it was a pad bottom. This is interesting. Your OMC bullet's back end diameter is 4 1/4" so not slim. The nosecone gave you water pressure at a higher level but the case was still 50% in the water at dead even with the pad. On the weight, general rule of thumb is 100lbs = 1mph. If you had 200hp with 500lbs versus 200hp with 1,000lbs with Doc Lou's 16 that is worth 5mph roughly.

The question is (first) can the Super Strangler gearcase run high enough? Second question is the Super Strangler gearcase slim enough to buy 5mph to make up for your lower weight?


I will sleep better tonight knowing that this thread has reached not only "84" pages, but now 85.......

[Greg Guimond]

And we haven't had the three consecutive 50 degree days up here in New York yet that marks the end of all WBT Winter Banter Threads :eek:

But wait, I've just noticed that your 9 comments/technical contributions in this thread have been really insightful ..............:rofl:

Thread: 16 OB Baby Owners - How Many Are Left?
Posts by Phil S

I will sleep better tonight knowing that this thread has reached not only "84" pages, but now 85.......
high and slim...always !
the-loch-ness-monster-is-dead-no-confirmed-sightings-since-1925
Assuming it's all above the equator...everyone knows this...
Draw an arrow to the broken ribs please Sir...
who knew it was Fonzi ?
no, he was only pulling four skiers...me, just one.
Buizilla's 16 OB went past me last spring like I was anchored and I run just a tick under 90...
what would happen if Ken Burns directed an episode of "Finding Bigfoot" ?

[woobs]

woobs gives some insights into how many inches below the keel line he is going to place his Alpha SS Drive propshaft on his 16 restore. 4 3/4" below the keel. Not sure what woobs target top speed is but it looks like he plans on chasing the big #?

I am not chasing any number.... just building a cool boat.

Since I am building from scratch I can build what I want... I will choose the best I can within my budget and it will be what it will be. Of course, I will want to take advantage of the potential that's there but, My 16 will have to accelerate, plane and handle, as well as have some decent top end for fun. Basically an overall performer. With 300+ish Hp if I hit mid 60's I'll be happy.

[Greg Guimond]

Enjoy. Forrest clocked 70mph with 300hp and an Alpha SS (produced from 1986 to 1989) so you'll be right in there at 65mph. Weigh your hull and deck though, I have a digital 2500lb scale I'll loan you if you want to drive to Rochester. 900lbs should be the weight all in.

Here is a little background on the Alpha SS ......... funny they call it "SS", Merc must have copied the Super Strangler!

The merCruiser SSM success spawned another idea: How about an Alpha SS for smaller boats? (The Alpha sterndrive had superseded the merCruiser I at our parent company, Mercury, so “Let’s go race it!”) In 1987, an Alpha SS application was forged with a special tunnel boat “Formula merCruiser” series. However, the tunnel boat guys, like the Seebold clan, preferred the light weight and spectacular performance of Mercury’s outboards (and still do!). The offshore folks preferred the speed and sea keeping of larger boats with bigger power. A product without a need dies quickly. By 1988, Alpha SS was dead.



The Alpha SS gearcase was the standard gearcase used on the Mercruiser 320 EFI engine package & the original 454 Magnum (the very first "Magnum" package ever offered) which was 330 horsepower and would normally utilize the base Alpha One. Mercruiser tested and proved both gearcases. Mercruiser's hydrodynamic's division further tested the cresent leading edge (CLE) gearcase to 95 mph in 1984, they did not test the standard Alpha case to these speeds for a reason, it's a different market that does not care about top speed.

[Greg Guimond]

.
Who the heck is this guy talking below? ....... looks like a member of the CRAY crowd with the wetted hull surface calcs. Where's Duckie or Ghost to interpret the numbers? Hold on-"good old boy" rule breakers? :superman:

Some interesting reading! There is no maximum velocity for any hull shape. It is a matter of propulsion. When I built 16's, the maximum power was about 200shp. Eaton "C", and Volvo 200 drives were high-drag. That means that high speeds equaled high trim. High trim equals chine walk. As power increases, trim can be minimized, as GEOO shows. I have designed boats for Donzi, Nova, Cigarette, Alpha Z, Pro-cat, Cougar, and consulted or contributed on dozens of others. Every day, I am astounded how you "good old boys" break all the rules, and go 10 mph faster than I thought possible. Hell, 140 mph in a V bottom are poker run speeds now. I made the Gulf Hall of Fame in a 28' Donzi going 65 mph. The pressure in your speedometer, and the pressure lifting your boat are identical. Pressure at 50 mph = 36.75psi, 100 mph = 147 psi, and 180 mph = 476 psi. Divide the weight of your boat by pressure in psi, and you will have an approximation of the true wetted area. Example: 42' Fountain at 142 mph (V bottom record) = 9,000lbs divided by 288 psi equals 31.25 sq. in. What I am leading up to, what possible difference could the bottom shape make (strake placement, for example) if the wetted are is the size of a dinner plate?

Anyone who says that this hull or that has a hull speed, or max speed or whatever is full of, well, beans............AB

[Ed Donnelly]

Trip to Rochester??
Too bad we didn't still have Spirit of Ontario I ...Ed

[woobs]

Trip to Rochester??
Too bad we didn't still have Spirit of Ontario I ...Ed

That would have been too easy!

[mattyboy]

Greg

here are a few pics of a Aq 280 there is really no leading "edge" on the front of the drive if you look at the newer volvo merc and volvo E drive there is more of an edge on the front of the drive. It has been seen here were the older volvo drives blow out with the older stle elephant ear props . the driver reports hitting 45-49 mph and then the rpms will increae but no increase in speed. this has gotten better with newer props but still the aq is not so slick in the water. any modern gearcase would have a big advantage over the aq

[Phil S]

....

[Phil S]

Always here to offer technical info and expertise any time I can....

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/06/bigfoot-hunter-claims-to-have-killed-beast-has-proof/

:D

[BUIZILLA]

I am interested in the clean Superboat for sale that someone mentioned earlier..

[Greg Guimond]

Greg
here are a few pics of a Aq 280 there is really no leading "edge" on the front of the drive if you look at the newer volvo merc and volvo E drive there is more of an edge on the front of the drive. It has been seen here were the older volvo drives blow out with the older stle elephant ear props . the driver reports hitting 45-49 mph and then the rpms will increae but no increase in speed. this has gotten better with newer props but still the aq is not so slick in the water. any modern gearcase would have a big advantage over the aq

Yes, agreed. The AQ280/290 are bricks. It's interesting that you could have an AQ280 at the "standard" mount height and then, with the same horsepower, Forrest plugs on an Alpha SS drive to his 16 Ski Sporter and picks up a full 10mph in speed based on the drive being both higher and slimmer which proves the point. Actually, the Alpha SS aint even modern as a 1987 build. Good things come in 25 year old packages I guess. As I've said in this thread, modern isn't always better for speed. Also, look at how high the water intake holes are on the 1987 Merc Alpha SS bullet in the pic below. You could not run this gearcase 2" below the keel line like the Mercury 225 OB (77MPH) did or Dr. Lou did as you would not have any water pressure.

Your only choice is to throw more horsepower at (or remove weight) the I/O 16 boats below. Each ran the Alpha SS Drive ......

Forrest 16 = 300hp
Rootsy 16 = 400hp
Parnell 16 = 500hp

[mattyboy]

warming up today Greg going to be 49 warm and sunny going to be a while before the lake thaws ice was 2 feet thick and we now have 4 feet of snow on top of that

might need to do this to get out on the water

[Ghost]

Yes, agreed. The AQ280/290 are bricks. It's interesting that you could have an AQ280 at standard mount height and then with the same horsepower Forrest plugs on an Alpha SS drive to his 16 Ski Sporter and picks up a full 10mph in speed based on the drive being both higher and slimmer which proves the point. Actually, the Alpha SS aint even modern as a 1987 build. As I've said, modern isn't always better for speed. Also, look at how high the water intake holes are on the 1987 Merc Alpha SS bullet in the pic below. You could not run this gearcase 2" below the keel line like the Mercury 225 OB (77MPH) did or Dr. Lou did as you would not have any water pressure. Your only choice is to throw more horsepower at (or remove weight) the I/O 16 boats below. Each ran the Alpha SS Drive ......

Forrest 16 = 300hp
Rootsy 16 = 400hp
Parnell 16 = 500hp

Well, it's not your "only choice"--lots of folks have put in other water pickups.

[Greg Guimond]

Well, it's not your "only choice"--lots of folks have put in other water pickups.


Low water pickups on an Alpha SS gear case? Curious who did that?

[Ghost]

Low water pickups on an Alpha SS gear case? Curious who did that?

Not talking about putting a new pickup in the gear case, just saying plenty of folks use remote pickups either to replace or supplement the ones in drives. And thus the pickup location isn't prohibitive if wanting to run an alpha SS at the height you said was impossible. I don't know if running it at that height would make any sense, but it's not impossible due to the water pickup location. There are other choices than what you outlined (adding hp or dropping weight).

[Greg Guimond]

Oh, if you are talking generically sure, I agree. I am talking about the Alpha SS gear case on the Ski Sporters only. I have never heard of anyone on the board closing off the factory inlet holes on the SS gear case and going to a transom mounted water pickup. Have you Ghost? You can do anything if you throw the money at it for sure, but no one has done it on a 16 so you are left with Forrest, Rootsy and Parnell as baseline examples with 300, 400, and 500hp. Then you have to compare that to Puerto Rico 225 and Dr. Lou's Super Strangler water pickups.

[Ghost]

Oh, if you are talking generically sure, I agree. I am talking about the Alpha SS gear case on the Ski Sporters only. I have never heard of anyone on the board closing off the factory inlet holes on the SS gear case and going to a transom mounted water pickup. Have you Ghost? You can do anything if you throw the money at it for sure, but no one has done it on a 16 so you are left with Forrest, Rootsy and Parnell as baseline examples with 300, 400, and 500hp. Then you have to compare that to Puerto Rico 225 and Dr. Lou's Super Strangler water pickups.

You don't have to "throw money at it." The water pickup part of the spend is tiny in a project that requires buying an alpha SS and raising the x with a new transom. You don't usually even need to block off the existing inlet on the drive to run a hull mounted pickup--I expect you can just let it spit and install the other pickup. It's irrelevant that I don't know anyone who's done it, my point was simply that your conclusion (that the only choices are to add hp or drop weight in an I/O 16, because of the water pickup location of the SS drive won't let it live at that height) isn't accurate.

[Just Say N20]

I sealed off the water pickups in my drive and added a transom pick up.

[Greg Guimond]

You don't have to "throw money at it." The water pickup part of the spend is tiny in a project that requires buying an alpha SS and raising the x with a new transom. You don't usually even need to block off the existing inlet on the drive to run a hull mounted pickup--I expect you can just let it spit and install the other pickup. It's irrelevant that I don't know anyone who's done it, my point was simply that your conclusion (that the only choices are to add hp or drop weight in an I/O 16, because of the water pickup location of the SS drive won't let it live at that height) isn't accurate.

Ahh, now I see. Gotcha, you are 100% correct.

Now, back to the more important point of speeds achieved by the Alpha SS boats. You have Forrest with 300hp doing 70mph with his 1972 16, then you have Rootsy who adds 110hp (410hp total) and clocks 81mph with his 1997 16. These seem to offer a pretty solid comparison and set a framework that each 10hp buys you about an additional 1mph in top speed for a 16. Both of these 16s, interestingly, were also running Cleaver props (Rootsy changed to a Hydro to get the last 1mph) and unless someone knows otherwise, both Forrest and Rootsy did not glass in a new transom and change the drive X cut out, they just bolted on the Alpha SS drive which raised there prop shaft centerline location 2 3/4" higher. By doing this they each picked up 10mph and less/no chine walk. The 16s can clearly run these higher speeds (don't need bottom mods) with proper set-up as was said a few posts back by whoever the "AB" guy is. Now Ghost, if someone had closed off the Alpha SS water inlet locations and then raised either Forrest or Rootsy's drive propshaft even higher to say 4", 3" or even 2" (like the Merc 225 OB) below the keel line of there boats, it would be interesting to see how much faster than 70mph and 81mph they could achieve. I nominate woobs to set his Alpha SS propshaft centerline at 4" below the keel line when he restores his 1966 16 and see what he gets with 300hp for handling and speed.

All that said, the Alpha SS drives in both Forrest and Rootsy's boats are still far deeper than the Puerto Rico 225 Merc or Dr. Lou's Super Strangler propshaft. The OB 16s thus are probably way lower on parasitic drag which is one big reason 77.7mph can happen with a 225hp wacker. For example the 1967 #452 boat can only get to 68mph with 210hp in large part because the owner can't run that specific Johnson OB case as high as the Merc 225 TM. He would have much more bullit and skeg in the water because he probably can't get it to 2" below the keel like the Mercury TM. Easy enough for Matty to check out when he talks to the owner of #452 about his set up. If #452 has 210hp and Puerto Rico 16 has 225hp there should be a minor difference in top speed. Instead there is a full 10mph.

Higher = speed and slimmer = speed

Does Dr. Lou's slimmer Super Strangler gearcase buy him an additional 7mph to get to the magic 84mph against the Merc boat and #452? It's tougher to get each of those additional mphs up in the more rarified air. Hmmmmmmm seems like a fairly big amount, that 7mph. I have to think about that while I chip tundra ice. I can't get past 90% probability at this point :( and we had our first 50 degree day today here in the North so time is getting short :nilly:

[Greg Guimond]

And we haven't had the three consecutive 50 degree days up here in New York yet that marks the end of all WBT Winter Banter Threads :eek:

Big, big problem. Today was the second day in a row that the temp was above 50. If tomorrow taps 50 degrees then WBT will have to close up shop till Jan 1, 2015 :doh:

[Greg Guimond]

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. For me, the question is whether it could be 210-215 hp, as the rest becomes instantly pretty doable. The realism is becoming possible.

Ghost, there is no way that the 1975 Evinrude Super Strangler Race OB could make 210-215hp so you need to change that obvious typo you posted saying your 65% believing Dr. Lou. Now as to the sale water current giving the Doc +2mph, I think you are also high with that as the Puerto Rico 16 OB clocked 77.7 the one way and then minutes later 76.2 on the turnaround run. So the best you could give apply there would be a 1mph benefit. You better check with Buizilla on currents in Miami Bay in 1996 as I have no idea where you are coming up with a source for that factoid.

I'll go it alone without the "current" benefit though. I'm looking to find the +7mph without the Cray, prefer gearcase to gearcase as they say :wavey:

[Ghost]

Ghost, there is no way that the 1975 Evinrude Super Strangler Race OB could make 210-215hp so you need to change that obvious typo you posted saying your 65% believing Dr. Lou. Now as to the sale water current giving the Doc +2mph, I think you are also high with that as the Puerto Rico 16 OB clocked 77.7 the one way and then minutes later 76.2 on the turnaround run. So the best you could give apply there would be a 1mph benefit. You better check with Buizilla on currents in Miami Bay in 1996 as I have no idea where you are coming up with a source for that factoid.

I'll go it alone without the "current" benefit though. I'm looking to find the +7mph without the Cray, prefer gearcase to gearcase as they say :wavey:

Disagree entirely. Currents are different everywhere. And not a little, but a LOT. Puerto Rican currents at the time of one test have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a one time run in Biscayne Bay or ANYWHERE else. The proper current adjustment for Dr Lou is not the current in PR at one date and time, but whatever the current was adding or subtracting from Dr Lou 's run. The question, instead, is whether Dr Lou did measured runs in opposing directions. Without that, nobody can demonstrate anything other than speed PLUS CURRENT for an individual run. Which, from the story and the GPS reading claim, it sounds clearly like he did not. Sounds like the guy in PR did his test right, taking back to back measures of runs in opposite directions. And Dr Lou did not, instead just taking a max GPS reading associated with one run, whatever it was, and forever unknown, in one direction. As such, it is susceptible to any, forever unknown, current addition. My reading of Biscayne Bay comments suggests this could make for at LEAST 2 knots of help, maybe more. It could also mean dr Lou went faster than he thought, of course. But in terms of reaching a stretch number, it means err low.

The best one could apply in the PR test is half the difference, or .75 knots. But that has nothing to do with anything in Biscayne Bay, or even in PR at a different time. I did opposing runs in the Detroit River, for example, with a difference of about 4 to 5 mph, because of about 2.25 mph of current. Had I done it one way only, like Dr Lou apparently did, I'd have claimed I did 64.5 mph. With the counter run that showed me down at 60.0, it became clear that I actually was really only doing about 62 mph through the water each way.

[Greg Guimond]

Um, as I said, we don't need no stinkin currents to get from 77 to 84 :rlol: "I'll go it alone without the "current" benefit though. I'm looking to find the +7mph without the Cray, prefer gearcase to gearcase as they say" :wavey:


Well, I narrowly dodged the Winter deadline bullet of three days in a row at 50 degrees or higher marking the close of the WBT. We're right back down into the 20's :chillpill: to the dismay of all the dart throwers as well as me, myself and I. So now I have to kinda look at what folk have seen out of various gearcases to try and take my 90% up a few notches. I was thinkin I could put that on the back burner until Jan 1 but hah, no such luck

So first, start with the 1967 #452 boat. Sadly for the OB crowd (which is basically me) this Donzi 16 is saddled with a big disadvantage speed wise. The tweaked 175 Johnson V6 (making 210hp) gearcase shown in the pic four posts above looks to be totally stock from the pictures Matty provided. That means not only are there no low water pickups but on that gearcase the water inlet holes are on the side and very high up to boot. Not good if you need water pressure and really BAD if are trying to go for the big top end speed number. That lower unit would have to run very deep in the drink to keep proper water pressure and that means mucho parasitic drag. I'd suspect (from experience) that the propshaft centerline, even with the minor setback, is 5" below the keel line. Better than N20's assumed 9 3/4" depth for sure on his Volvo AQ290 but not exactly the same as what he was able to run with the same gearcase on his Laser 16 as he posted ........


My Laser 16 was a shallow V with a pad bottom, not a tunnel or modified tunnel. The lower unit was stock for an Evinrude V6 200 1980 vintage. I added a nose cone that was NOT parabolic with a point extending out beyond the bullet of the gear case. The nose cone was straight with water intakes on the bottom front of the bullet, running plumbing up both sides to get enough water pressure. The highest I ran it, for max top speed, was with the prop shaft even with the pad on the hull. This meant that half the lower unit gear case was in the water. Any higher and I lost water pressure, so testing without cooling was out of the question.Now, the precise propshaft centerline depth of 1967 #452 would be easy enough to verify as the jackplate on Matty's target 1967 16 looks to be a fixed unit and not hydraulic. Once the owner of #452 picked a height setting, he probably leaves it there. Matty can ask him about that when they talk next. 5" below the keel of a 16 is high for the car motor drives but it is very deep for OB blue smokers.

That 5" propshaft depth, coupled with a fat 4 5/8" Johnson gearcase bullet diameter and #452 is dead in the (deep blue) water at 68mph ...... pun intended.

[Just Say N20]

So the rough recap for drive types, speeds, and drive depths ......leaving bullet diameters out for now as I still need to find 7mph.

Bill N20 16 - AQ290 drive - Propshaft Centerline 9 3/4" below the 16s keel --


Bill N20 16 - AQ290 drive - Propshaft Centerline 9 3/4" below the 16s keel -- 430+ hp, 65.2 GPS.

[Greg Guimond]

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. (this must be Anti V plate)
The plate is 1/2" below keele for a total of 7 3/4". (why would you want the AV plate to not be at least even with the keel line or above)
I'm shortening the alpha 3". (is this a custom Alpha One cut and weld job or an actual 1987 SS)
I should have a measurement of 4 3/4" below the keel at spec hole placement. (Not bad but why not try 4" dead level, no one ever has)

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. (I would/might make this change but absolutely not until season 2. never make a bunch of changes at once)

What differences will a pad make on these specs? (no idea, that is an Ed D question)
78849


I'm coming back to woobs who has multiple simultaneous variables being programmed into the CRAY that he and Ghost went 50/50 on. Now, low debt rate financing aside, some of the things that really matter here are -

1. What will his 1966 Ski Sporter hull and deck weigh naked? The assumption is not more than 1,000lbs
2. How many ponies will he be using? My assumption is exactly 292hp like Forrest ten years before him who did 70mph
3. He says he is shortening an Alpha. What does that mean? Is he using a CLE SS? Is he slicing an Alpha One? Does he have a "special" approach?
4. When all that stuff is figured out, will woobs' exact propshaft centerline be the same 5 1/8" below the keel line as Rootsy and Forrests was? Time will tell but I'd go higher and try exactly 4"

I actually really like the experiments on all fronts with the 16s. That is how you figure stuff out and learn a few new tricks.

[Greg Guimond]

Overall it has been interesting to see what the drive's drag impact can mean to top speeds outside of the Winter Banter Thread. :( I always assumed the drive was a big amount, but I would have thought the hull drag would be more prominent. I'm not exactly sure who this guy is but he has some interesting thoughts on surface drag. I think he is saying that at higher speeds, the lower unit has more effect than the hull?


There is no maximum velocity for any hull shape. It is a matter of propulsion. When I built 16's, the maximum power was about 200hp. Eaton "C", and Volvo 200 drives were high-drag. That means that high speeds equaled high trim. High trim equals massive chine walk. As power increases, trim can be minimized, as GEOO has shown. Every day, I am astounded how you "good old boys" break all the rules, and go 10 mph faster than I ever thought possible. The pressure in your speedometer, and the pressure lifting your boat are identical. Pressure at 50 mph = 36.75psi, 100 mph = 147 psi. Divide the weight of your boat by pressure in psi, and you will have an approximation of the true wetted area. Example: 42' Fountain at 142 mph (V bottom record) = 9,000lbs divided by 288 psi equals 31.25 sq. in. What I am leading up to, what possible difference could the bottom shape make (strake placement, for example) if the wetted are is the size of a dinner plate?

Anyone who says that this hull or that has a hull speed, or max speed or whatever is full of, well, beans............AB

[Ghost]

Overall it has been interesting to see what the drive's drag impact can mean to top speeds outside of the Winter Banter Thread. :( I always assumed the drive was a big amount, but I would have thought the hull drag would be more prominent. I'm not exactly sure who this guy is but he has some interesting thoughts on surface drag. I think he is saying that at higher speeds, the lower unit has more effect than the hull?

I think if you read it more closely, it doesn't say that. He mentions that pressures are identical on both. So...How much area is he talking about with the hull compared to the lower? With the same pressure applied to each?

(One other clear implication is that he differs radically from your notion of the mix of buoyancy forces and planing forces.)

[Morgan's Cloud]

Greg , if you don't know who 'AB' is on these forums by now you might be involved in the wrong past-time.

[Ed Donnelly]

Here is a hint.. He worked closely with R.F. and D.A. .....E.D.

[Just Say N20]

I don't know who AB is, nor the "helpful hints" given by Ed.

Guess I'm a neophyte too.

:bawling:

[Morgan's Cloud]

Over the years the automotive world mourned the passing of Enzo Ferrari and Ferry Porsche and in the boating world we've lost Carlton Mitchell , Dick Bertram ,Jim Wynne and Don Aronow but thankfully we still have 'AB' :worthy:

[Greg Guimond]

I get it. This is where all the car motor boys get together and play the "let's mess with that loony OB guy who keeps talking about nothing and playing keyboard cowboy." There probably is no AB and that formula "AB" used for wetted surface was probably a hoax. Hmmm ..... For that I officially remove the March 1st end date for bench seat banter and revert to 3 consecutive 50 degree days ONLY. So there :uzi:

Now Ghost can you give me back my abacus so I can find 7mph :doh:

[jl1962]

Ab =

78945

[Ed Donnelly]

Ab =

78945

VERY GOOD Took me a few seconds to figure that out Guess I ate too many in my younger days...Ed

[woobs]

I'm coming back to woobs who has multiple simultaneous variables being programmed into the CRAY that he and Ghost went 50/50 on. Now, low debt rate financing aside, some of the things that really matter here are -

1. What will his 1966 Ski Sporter hull and deck weigh naked? The assumption is not more than 1,000lbs We'll see....The Hull is light, the deck... well, I'm not so sure. The re-coring looks robust.
2. How many ponies will he be using? My assumption is exactly 292hp like Forrest ten years before him who did 70mph Again, we'll see... But I'm aiming for 300+Hp out of a 4.3 V6
3. He says he is shortening an Alpha. What does that mean? Is he using a CLE SS? Is he slicing an Alpha One? Does he have a "special" approach? Slicing 3" out of an alpha upper (similar to "triple digits" project)
4. When all that stuff is figured out, will woobs' exact propshaft centerline be the same 5 1/8" below the keel line as Rootsy and Forrests was? Time will tell but I'd go higher and try exactly 4" I'm not sure where to engineer the final alignment of the propshaft centerline. It needs to be an all-around everyday performer that is fun to drive. I'm planning a pad and extended (21") strakes to help the mid and top ends but, it has to plane reasonably well too.

Since there is a new transom I can cut the hole wherever I want. I might lower the engine to use up some of that 3". With this build you must keep in mind I am not chasing a top speed. Ed already did that. I do, however want to take advantage of as much as I can for the sake of versatility....and the "coolness" factor.

I actually really like the experiments on all fronts with the 16s. That is how you figure stuff out and learn a few new tricks.

Enquiring minds.....

[Greg Guimond]

This worked perfectly. I threw out the AB and it pushed the thread into the #2 slot of all time on the site for replies. Now I just have to bag Top 5 for views before the WBT is up!
:rock:

[woobs]

I actually had a BAD computer virus and had to rebuild my entire system.... so I've been AFK.

I don't mind chatting about things on this thread but, I'm not commenting on the miracle 84 anymore as my thoughts are known and my points made. Besides, it's all conjecture anyways. :)

[woobs]

I would forget the pad entirely and only extend the inner strakes from 21s to 15s, the boat won't be fast enough to truly benefit from the pad.

Why 15"?
At what speed do you think the pad comes into play?

[Greg Guimond]

Dr. Lou's 84mph claim with the Super Strangler is all but in the bag woobs. Even Ghost claims now to be at 65%, go figure.

Myself, I'm now at 95% that the boat is legit and Dr Lou clocked 84 in 1996. I will admit that the last 5% could be a deal breaker. Have to see but a snow storm is enroute to us so I'm safe from three 50s in a row! :hi5:

[Ed Donnelly]

141 posts away from beating Mr. Carters record and
No One ever thought it would be beat.
I guess I am the only one who still believes 100% that
Dr. Benz did what he said he did, and he thanked me via MM...Ed

[woobs]

141 posts away from beating Mr. Carters record and
No One ever thought it would be beat.
I guess I am the only one who still believes 100% that
Dr. Benz did what he said he did, and he thanked me via MM...Ed

Ed, if you're in touch with the good doctor, maybe you could ask him to give us some real data... and we could stop guessing and figuring our way to the claimed miracle?

I still say doing it, and believing that you have done it are two separate things.
Given the information I have seen and the circumstances reported surrounding the claim; I cannot get on board with the claims validity. Of course, I don't mean to impeach the man's character.

[Morgan's Cloud]

My guess is that if you posed the question to AB about Dr Lou's boat you'd get a very interesting response.
Maybe you should try pm'ing him
He hasn't been on here for a few years but he's still active on OSO .

He goes under his real name of 'ALLAN BROWN'

[Greg Guimond]

BROWNIE, sure ...... another car motor guy (and living iconic legend) who would espouse how impossible 84 is/was. Then he'd tell you that 77.7mph never happened with David Vila like 95% of the guys on the forum would have said before this thread and that a Super Strangler's gearcase is the same diameter as todays Sportmaster.

Of course I suspect that his delivery would be umm ............colorful, and include something like "GFY PUNK I HATE STINKIN WACKERS" :yes: Now I have to go rig my water canon in prep for Sundays snowstorm :mad:

[Just Say N20]

BROWNIE, sure ...... another car motor guy (and living iconic legend) who would espouse how impossible 84 is/was. Then he'd tell you that 77.7mph never happened with David Vila like 95% of the guys on the forum would have said before this thread and that a Super Strangler's gearcase is the same diameter as todays Sportmaster.

Of course I suspect that his delivery would be umm ............colorful, and include something like "GFY PUNK I HATE STINKIN WACKERS" :yes: Now I have to go rig my water canon in prep for Sundays snowstorm :mad:

Greg, that was your least cool post of this thread.

[Greg Guimond]

Yeah, I kinda agree. My repair bills are getting the best of me with all this bad weather. AB actually told me about Bryant's being a Donzi dealer for 4 or 5 years when I sent him a note out of the blue. Fred Darwick sent my note to him and basically they were both bored with the ask. Remember the resume's they have. Me tooling around in a piss ant 16 is not a big deal. AB is a major milestone to marine records. Now Charlie Strang is no slouch but Buizilla might think otherwise.

Bill, are you comfortable now that 77.7 mph with a 225 Merc is 100% legit at 2" below the keel?

[Ed Donnelly]

Ed, if you're in touch with the good doctor, maybe you could ask him to give us some real data... and we could stop guessing and figuring our way to the claimed miracle?

I still say doing it, and believing that you have done it are two separate things.
Given the information I have seen and the circumstances reported surrounding the claim; I cannot get on board with the claims validity. Of course, I don't mean to impeach the man's character.

Sorry if you didn't get it
I was just trying to lighten up this thread a bit. It gets friendly then goes for a sh*t
The MM was my attempt at humor as in MIND MELD sorry...Ed

[woobs]

Sorry, My bad. I didn't pick up on your lead. (I figured MM was a typo)
I thought it was smooth sailing for this thread recently....

Ever hopeful, I thought there might actually have been a Pot o' Gold at the end of this rainbow. (Trust an Irishman!)

The funny thing is... after all these posts, pretty much everyone is right where they were at the beginning. There may be more conviction it each persons belief... and lots of interesting points have been discussed however, it's really all for naught.

[BUIZILLA]

Yeah, I kinda agree. My repair bills are getting the best of me with all this bad weather. AB actually told me about Bryant's being a Donzi dealer for 4 or 5 years when I sent him a note out of the blue. Fred Darwick sent my note to him and basically they were both bored with the ask. Remember the resume's they have. Me tooling around in a piss ant 16 is not a big deal. AB is a major milestone to marine records. Now Charlie Strang is no slouch but Buizilla might think otherwise. there you go twisting and changing my words again, you should be honored a PHD with that crap. My comment about Strang centered around the fact YOU or HE stated he didn't remember the hundreds of hours he spent in an 18, or was that a 22??, he couldn't remember since it was his wife's boat... YOUR words... as far as Fred goes, I bought my boat from him, if I need info I can get it in 5 minutes, he lives that close to me... carry on in La La land

[Greg Guimond]

Oh geez, again?

[Greg Guimond]

there you go twisting and changing my words again, you should be honored a PHD with that crap. My comment about Strang centered around the fact YOU or HE stated he didn't remember the hundreds of hours he spent in an 18, or was that a 22??, he couldn't remember since it was his wife's boat... YOUR words... as far as Fred goes, I bought my boat from him, if I need info I can get it in 5 minutes, he lives that close to me... carry on in La La land

Jim, I just noticed that you must have deleted all your posts but I'm not twisting your words. I think you are doing the word twisting actually. Mr. Strang never said he spent hundreds of hours in any Donzi, nor did I, where did that come from? The comment about "100s" is in the pic below. He did say he routinely got different boats sent to his waterfront backdoor to play with. One of those boats was a Donzi. It was never his wife's boat. It was a loaner boat. He remembered it had a Gil bracket on it and an OMC OB.

Now, after you go for a boat ride today and get that best GPS speed of 59.2 with your TRP I want you to leave the engine in the exact same position, run the boat over to Fred, and he can take a high res picture of how many inches your Yams prop shaft centerline is below your 1996 16 OBs keel. There will be a picture, so that will mean it's a FACT and there won't be any words a twistin a decade from now lol

ps: I may be wrong with 59.2, perhaps it is 60.6

[Greg Guimond]

The funny thing is... after all these posts, pretty much everyone is right where they were at the beginning. There may be more conviction it each persons belief... and lots of interesting points have been discussed however, it's really all for naught.

If there are a lot of interesting points then it aint all for naught AND it burns time in Winter with banter. :drive:

Now on the tech front, once you review the Mercury hydrodynamics chart and recognize how 77.7mph got achieved in the Puerto Rico OB 16 and how Rootsy achieved 81.3mph in his 16 all the rest of it starts to fall right into line with respect to stock 16 hull bottoms. :yes:

[woobs]

Is it all about parasitic drag???

C'mon guys... It's all about ball bearings these days!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prqDn7QS8I

78947
"The lower the parasitic drag the faster"
"The higher it's mounted the faster"...

...I'll install this baby on my 16 just 1" into the water and hit 100mph... right? :)

Whoops...couldn't resist a chortle :)

[Greg Guimond]

I think that would be perfect for your 16 woobs. Wait ........... you might want to consider this motor instead, add the pad and then you'll be good for triple digits :biggrin:

[woobs]

I don't goose step..........

[Greg Guimond]

I finally was able to locate a picture of Doc Lou and his 16. :rolleyes: Looks like he's chasing down Osiris Perez :eek:

[Greg Guimond]

And here is Rootsy who set his drive prop shaft so that the centerline was 5" below his 16s keel .............



ROCK ON!
now that is awesome performance from a bone stock 270 pshp 18...i really want to go up another inch on my 16... C/L of the propshaft is 5 inches BELOW the keel...Rootsy - weekend skunkworks...

[Greg Guimond]

There is no maximum velocity for any hull shape. It is a matter of propulsion. When I built 16's, the maximum power was about 200hp. Eaton "C", and Volvo 200 drives were high-drag. That means that high speeds equaled high trim. High trim equals massive chine walk. As power increases, trim can be minimized, as GEOO has shown. Every day, I am astounded how you "good old boys" break all the rules, and go 10 mph faster than I ever thought possible. The pressure in your speedometer, and the pressure lifting your boat are identical. Pressure at 50 mph = 36.75psi, 100 mph = 147 psi. Divide the weight of your boat by pressure in psi, and you will have an approximation of the true wetted area. Example: 42' Fountain at 142 mph (V bottom record) = 9,000lbs divided by 288 psi equals 31.25 sq. in. What I am leading up to, what possible difference could the bottom shape make (strake placement, for example) if the wetted are is the size of a dinner plate? Anyone who says that this hull or that has a hull speed, or max speed or whatever is full of, well, beans............AB


Overall it has been interesting to see what the drive's drag impact can mean to top speeds outside of the Winter Banter Thread. :( I always assumed the drive was a big amount, but I would have thought the hull drag would be more prominent. I'm not exactly sure who this guy is but he has some interesting thoughts on surface drag. I think he is saying that at higher speeds, the lower unit has more effect than the hull?


I think if you read it more closely, it doesn't say that. He mentions that pressures are identical on both. So...How much area is he talking about with the hull compared to the lower? With the same pressure applied to each?

Interesting Ghost. How would you apply that to the 16s being discussed? Take Rootsy's I/O v Puerto Rico O/B, with there pretty different gearcases?

[Ghost]

Interesting Ghost. How would you apply that to the 16s being discussed? Take Rootsy's I/O v Puerto Rico O/B, with there pretty different gearcases?

If the pressure is the same, the question becomes "how much area is that pressure applied over?" for the hull, gear case, etc. and of course the gear case component is different for different setups/lowers.

[Morgan's Cloud]

I'm sorry , but all of this focus on the prop shaft height is like chasing ghosts IMO.
I still can not see a 99 cu inch engine of maybe 185 hp having the balls to swing a prop large enough to make a 16OB do 84mph no matter where the prop shaft is located.

Are we forgetting exactly how fast 84 mph is ? ? We're talking about tears in your ears and your jowls flapping and the wind hitting you in the chest like a wall of water . From a 99 cu inch motor on a very simple deep v design ?

I'll believe it when I see the tape .

[Greg Guimond]

If the pressure is the same, the question becomes "how much area is that pressure applied over?" for the hull, gear case, etc. and of course the gear case component is different for different setups/lowers.

Ok, I think I agree. It sounds like from Brownie's post, that lbs of pressure are the same (speed dependent) whether those lbs are fighting the 16 hulls small wetted surface at 80mph or a barely surfacing gearcase 2" below the keel of a 16 at 80mph. The thing that seems to go against the gut though is that the hull is skimming along like a spoon on a tiny contact patch, whereas the gearcase (and the skeg for sure) is really fighting the water from a parasitic drag perspective. How do you figure out the square inches of one contact patch versus the other? Do you need that monster CRAY locked in the cellar? Probably. Does woobs have the key? If the wetted surface contact sq. in. patch for Rootsy's 16 hull at speed is identical to the wetted surface of David's Puerto Rico 16 OB hull then isn't it down to the Hunt for Red October? Gearcase v Gearcase for 7mph? Mano a Mano?

It would be interesting to lay out the wetted surface of the hull, versus the gearcase, at least according to AB's comments from massive experience, and then add the chart below from the consultant and Mercury Hi-Po.

[Ghost]

If the pressure (force per unit area) is evenly distributed over the area at speed X, then the FORCE resulting from that pressure simply takes into consideration both the area over which it is applied AND the direction in which it is applied. Making most of the resultant force on the hull (running at a shallow angle like 5 degrees) an UPWARD force of LIFT, with only a small STERNWARD component vector of DRAG, by comparison.

As for how one would approximate the math of the relative area of the drive versus the boat, I think Brownie's post goes a long way to solving that. On the hull, the lift would be a large component and the drag would be a small one. The resultant of the two would be pressure times area. Figure out the ratio of lift to drag from the angles, and you can find the approximate drag, since the lift component would nearly equal the weight of the boat. (The drive, being symmetric not just in the horizontal but also in the vertical) would make for relatively little lift, and mostly just net drag. The bottom edge of the skeg would give SOME lift, but likely not much relative to that generated by the hull. That is, if the drive were submerged. If the drive shaft was much closer to the surface, I'd expect the drive to generate more lift, as the lift from the bottom of the bullet would no longer be nearly evenly offset by the downward force exerted on the top of the bullet. Even so, I'd still expect it to be a VERY small amount of lift relative to that generated by the hull.

[Greg Guimond]

I'm sorry , but all of this focus on the prop shaft height is like chasing ghosts IMO. I still can not see a 99 cu inch engine of maybe 185 hp having the balls to swing a prop large enough to make a 16OB do 84mph no matter where the prop shaft is located. Are we forgetting exactly how fast 84 mph is ? ? We're talking about tears in your ears and your jowls flapping and the wind hitting you in the chest like a wall of water . From a 99 cu inch motor on a very simple deep v design ?

I'll believe it when I see the tape .

Ok, put the gearcase aside for a moment. The Super Strangler was dyno'd by guys who built them at 185 at the propshaft. The extra 15hp we covered some of which is based on the pic below. Now at a gut level I thought the same thing as you at the start, after all Americans are all about big. A little motor can't do it and I have gone 84 mph and 79mph in a 16 so I know exactly what it's like. The tears are true but the wall of water on the chest, not really lol.

But then I asked, if 200hp is 200hp no matter how you get it than it just don't matter, right? I always thought that torque was the key so the big block OB's have a huge advantage. But this thread has said that torque is not the key, these boats are not at the drag strip and I have run an Evinrude 250, Yamaha 250, Merc 200, Promax 225, 225X, and 2.5 280 so I have a feel for what torque does in everyday boating. Drop the hammer on the VMAX 250 and the boat jumps out of the hole, but it can't hold a candle to the small block up top.

So if horsepower is horsepower, am I missing something MC?
:screwy:

[Ghost]

For clarity, the "horsepower is horsepower" concept is being discussed for top end only. The assumption is that the boat only needs enough torque to get on plane and may take a LONG time to accelerate up to top speed, compared to what most of us would consider reasonable performance. The boat may be a dog overall, specialized for top end speed and sacrificing a lot for it. Like an Indy car that can barely get rolling in the pits when stopped. A Yugo would blow it away in a drag race, up to a certain distance/speed.

(The only other issue would be gearing and prop selection (itself a form of gearing). Horsepower is horsepower, provided the proper gearing of it to the task can actually be implemented.)

[Greg Guimond]

I understand your concept but I think it is exaggerated. Everyone knows that Donzi 16 OB Baby's were routinely rigged with 115hp and 135hp V4 OB's in the early 70's and these had no problem moving the boat around in "normal" mode with zero issues planning.

[Ghost]

I understand your concept but I think it is exaggerated. Everyone knows that Donzi 16 OB Baby's were routinely rigged with 115hp and 135hp V4 OB's in the early 70's and these had no problem moving the boat around in "normal" mode with zero issues planning.

It's not exaggerated at all. For starters, it can't be exaggerated because I haven't made ANY claims about ACTUAL compromises of Dr. Lou's boat or any other. All I have done is make clear that in the guesstimates of what his boat would do, we should be willing to consider that it might have sacrificed everyday practicality for top end.

Further, the "115/135 getting happily on plane" examples don't really matter when trying to guesstimate how a high-speed "even more hopped up than the already hopped up Super Strangler" 16 would perform. Just as the Yugo getting up to 30 mph without stalling out doesn't mean the Indy car will be able to do it without stalling frequently. First, the speed motor's torque curve may be very different, losing low end grunt for top end. Second, the high-speed boat is using a STEEP prop to be able to go so much faster. You don't get to switch out of that when you want to plane, you're stuck trying to climb out of the hole in much higher gear (prop pitch) with the same paltry cubes as the 115 and a lot of cam that's not optimal at low rpm. Could be a dog for everyday use. Like a Warlock, that makes amazing speed for the power plant, but takes 27 seconds to plane.

Besides, I'm making the point that HP = HP. Which is all about how torque (which matters a TON for most boating concerns) doesn't matter here at all, except to the extent that the boat can actually get out of the hole and start the long, slow journey to top speed. I am countering any argument that "Dr. Lou's boat couldn't do X because it would be a dog, slow to plane, etc." My point is it doesn't matter, this was apparently a boat that was willing to sacrifice things for top end. I mean, who ever runs a 2-blade prop and and OB with baseball-bat exhaust?

in short, I'm not saying it was a dog getting on plane. I'm saying ya can't use that argument here to say it wouldn't do WOT speed x.

[Greg Guimond]

Hmmmmm ...........


It's not exaggerated at all. For starters, it can't be exaggerated because I haven't made ANY claims about ACTUAL compromises of Dr. Lou's boat or any other. All I have done is make clear that in the guesstimates of what his boat would do, we should be willing to consider that it might have sacrificed everyday practicality for top end.

Yep ..... we all had already said that everyday practicality would not be the #1 priority for the Ph.D of Performance. I think he had a 'toon too.

Further, the "115/135 getting happily on plane" examples don't really matter when trying to guesstimate how a high-speed "even more hopped up than the already hopped up Super Strangler" 16 would perform. Just as the Yugo getting up to 30 mph without stalling out doesn't mean the Indy car will be able to do it without stalling frequently. First, the speed motor's torque curve may be very different, losing low end grunt for top end.

Kinda agree but your examples are a tad extreme ..... The Super Strangler was not a one-off laboratory wacker built by a mad scientist like the Starflite boat and motor that 33 year old Gerry Walin set the world speed record with in September 1974. These OMC SS motors had a 6 year model run so for a race motor that is very impressive and durable. They won at races like the Parker 7 hour Enduro, Paris 6 Hour, Rouen 24 hour and on and on. The torque curve would obviously have been different. I'd actually like to know what a 135 Evinrude made for torque for grins seeing as how many 16s hung them.

Second, the high-speed boat is using a STEEP prop to be able to go so much faster. You don't get to switch out of that when you want to plane, you're stuck trying to climb out of the hole in much higher gear (prop pitch) with the same paltry cubes as the 115 and a lot of cam that's not optimal at low rpm. Could be a dog for everyday use. Like a Warlock, that makes amazing speed for the power plant, but takes 27 seconds to plane.

No way, disagree ..... I carry three props on my 16. When I leave for the ramp I have an idea of conditions, do I have our daughter with me or am I solo with flat water blah blah blah. I change to the prop I want right at the ramp as I eyeball the actual conditions. Takes minutes. I'm sure that Dr. Lou didn't go out to race the Chief on every run he made, right? Just like I don't prop for a 79mph run every trip I take. On the Warlock's if anyone ever cared that it takes 27 seconds to plane, I'd be shocked. The Warlocks have proven time and time again in all kinds of APBA classes that they crush the competition foot for foot The consumer version 25' World Class clocks 78mph with a stock Bravo and a 496HO. 27 seconds to plane? It takes longer to sneeze lol.

Besides, I'm making the point that HP = HP. Which is all about how torque (which matters a TON for most boating concerns) doesn't matter here at all, except to the extent that the boat can actually get out of the hole and start the long, slow journey to top speed.

100% agree. If HP = HP then no one should care how many cubic inches made 200 ponies just that the competition did 77.7mph with 225 ponies.

I am countering any argument that "Dr. Lou's boat couldn't do X because it would be a dog, slow to plane, etc." My point is it doesn't matter, this was apparently a boat that was willing to sacrifice things for top end. I mean, who ever runs a 2-blade prop and and OB with baseball-bat exhaust?

I know plenty of guys who would kill for that baseball bat open exhaust in the pic. No different than headers from CMI, Gil, Stainless Marine. I'd be first in line for 'em once I get outta LaLa Land

in short, I'm not saying it was a dog getting on plane. I'm saying ya can't use that argument here to say it wouldn't do WOT speed x.

I believe it's down to the gear case paper chase

[Greg Guimond]

The gear case paper chase ............. looks like the gent in this picture is onto something :outtahere:

[Ghost]

How many props anyone carries is irrelevant. We're talking about the boat WHEN configured with THE prop used for WOT speed, and how the boat might plane slowly with THAT prop on. I guarantee you don't plane out on one of your props and then switch to a steeper one for a couple extra mph.

More important, for some reason you are (blindly) defending some boat from a criticism that hasn't been made. I have never claimed the boat planed badly. I have only said that nobody could use that argument to make inferences about WOT speed, given the assumption the boat was set up with a willingness to make sacrifices for speed.

As for Warlock, tradeoffs are just that. I wouldn't have a boat that struggles to plane for half a minute. It would suck for my use cases. Others are willing to live with that for the top speed it yields, because their use cases are different. To each his own.

[Greg Guimond]

I think you missed the point, again. It has nothing to do with planning. My point was you don't go the dock for a speed run with a big wheel unless you look out and the winds are low and water rippling. In any event I was really talking more about the Super Strangler being a pretty robust product instead of a "hopped hopped hopped up one time wonder" :eek:

Onto the gearcases .........

[Ghost]

I think you missed the point, again. It has nothing to do with planning. My point was you don't go the dock for a speed run with a big wheel unless you look out and the winds are low and water rippling. In any event I was really talking more about the Super Strangler being a pretty robust product instead of a "hopped hopped hopped up one time wonder"


Onto the gearcases .........


Wow, Bizarro World. I can't miss the point when it's my point to begin with. There's so much nonsense that I'll only grab a couple pieces and address those.

But first, for clarity, it makes sense to restate my point. Namely, that nobody should dispute any claim about Lou's boat based on the notion that the boat would not be an all-around good performer. Because the boat seems to make trade off decisions based on devotion to top speed, with a willingness to sacrifice other things. Regardless of how major or minor those sacrifices were.

Hand in hand with this point is that hp is hp, and torque only matters to get over a low threshold. Other than that minimal need, cubes and torque don't matter for the wot debate, only hp matters, given the right gearing, including props.

On prop swaps, obviously, anyone CAN change gearing by changing props. Or by changing motors. Or taking the ski boat out that day instead of the Donzi set up for speed. It has bupkis to do with any discussions of Lou's boat as set up for max speed.

In short, I never said Lou's boat was a dog planing, or in any other category of performance. I said it COULD BE, and that still wouldn't matter in debating how it would perform wide open.

Thats what I actually said.

You try to refute things I never claimed. For one, you say a 16 with a 115 or 135 and a lower pitched prop doesn't have a problem planing, proving Lou's boat would plane fine. Which not only makes no sense, but is a failed attempt to refute something I never said in the first place.

Unless you really meant "planning" (used more than once by you) instead of "planing" in which case I defer--I admit I never considered the planning abilities of any boat.

Another piece of nonsense is denying the extremely hopped up nature of any 200 hp SS outboard. First, for laughs, define "robust product," whatever that is supposed to mean. And chime in with whatever bearing it is supposed to have on the discussion.

As as for the hopped up thing, I DID claim that and IT WAS hopped up. The supposed 185 hp version was already a seriously hopped up 135 (which was already the highest-tuned model in a range of 99 cubic inch 4 cyls running from 90ish to 115 to 135hp). And the particular SS being conjectured about is hopped up even more to what, 200hp in your mind now? As best I recall from the ad, the supposed 185 hp SS was sold with no warranty as a race motor, built "to the standards of durability of competition motors" or something like that, written in their own ad. And THAT was the 185, not the theorized "200."

And besides, nobody said a word about durability anyway, so what's the point? What WAS said was it was a race motor, expected to have race motor trade offs, which COULD mean Lou's boat was a dog planing, which I started out by saying should not be counted against Lou's speed claim even IF the boat took forever to plane out.

Other than all that (plus a bunch of things even I didn't waste my life typing), though you're spot on point, LOL.

p.s. As an aside, it's just kinda funny that per Lou himself, the motor only ran wide open long enough to reach top speed TWICE in Lou's ownership before it grenaded. Off topic, just a funny sidebar given your unprompted defense of its "robustness."

[Greg Guimond]

OMG my head just exploded! You're now a winner in two categories - use of largest font size and highest number of sentences used in a single post focusing on piece parts that have no particular relevance to a Donzi going 84. I think the only thing that matters is that you and I agree that horsepower is horsepower. On the other stuff I can tell now by your comments that you probably have not owned any high performance OB hulls.

I may be wrong on that, but I'm 95% sure I'm not, just like I'm 95% on the Doc. If I'm wrong please correct me so I can re-frame the discussion for ya :confused: I can't be far from three days of 50 degrees so times a wastin :rolleyes:

[Greg Guimond]

Only a few views away from Top 5, I thank you for the help in that regard Ghost :tongue: Now does all of the above mean you are still at 65% that Dr. Lou did 84?



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.

[Ghost]

OMG my head just exploded! You're now a winner in two categories - use of largest font size and highest number of sentences used in a single post focusing on piece parts that have no particular relevance to a Donzi going 84. I think the only thing that matters is that you and I agree that horsepower is horsepower. On the other stuff I can tell now by your comments that you probably have not owned any high performance OB hulls.

I may be wrong on that, but I'm 95% sure I'm not, just like I'm 95% on the Doc. If I'm wrong please correct me so I can re-frame the discussion for ya :confused: I can't be far from three days of 50 degrees so times a wastin :rolleyes:

Attack the poster instead of arguing he substance of his post. (And some particularly ironic criticism, given you may have hosted the longest thread ever, and it's gotten virtually nowhere, despite plenty of folks trying to help you.)

And go for the phony credential argument too. (If you broke your leg, would you rather have it set by an average guy who's had his own leg broken 3 times, or an orthopaedic who's never broken his leg in his life?)

Farewell. Well, fare anyway.

[Greg Guimond]

Attack? Oh come now, the only attack happened many posts ago. It's just a question. I'm curious what boats you have run in the past? Care to answer?

Gotten virtually nowhere? It helped Winter go by with some yuks. It showed that a 16 Baby clocked 77.7mph. It showed my pad bottom 16 is slow. It showed horsepower is horsepower no matter where it comes from. It showed Rootsy ran his propshaft at 5" below the keel of his 16. It showed me how to get to LaLa Land. It showed Forest went 70mph with 300hp in his 16.

And come now, do you not read your own "Ghost Posts"? It got you from zero to 65% that Lou went 84mph, now that's ironic. :smile:

[zipper]

just wondering... do you have any friends left on here

[Greg Guimond]

Who knows zip, either way is aok. It's the internet so folks can take it or leave it. I'm not concerned with a healthy discussion, never have been. I'm careful though to say only what I would say in person. I did get a pm from a guy saying there was a ton of useful info in the thread. Evidently he has somehow gotten a hold of two Alpha SS drives. I want one just to have it.

Those old gear cases are worth 10mph :eek: That's like hydrodynamic gold :shark:

[zipper]

I've followed this thread for quite awhile... It has at times been quite amusing & at other times from the outside looking in.... WOW
Well.... with the good weather almost upon us, it looks like I'll have pick this thread back up again next winter..
Cheers

[woobs]

I'm not concerned with a healthy discussion, never have been.
This is an interesting statement.....

[Greg Guimond]

I've followed this thread for quite awhile... It has at times been quite amusing & at other times from the outside looking in.... WOW
Well.... with the good weather almost upon us, it looks like I'll have pick this thread back up again next winter..
Cheers

Now better weather is about the ONLY thing that everyone will agree on. :salute:


Ghost can you run the wetted surface calcs for a 16 hull that runs between 77 and 84? The attack angle you mentioned of 5 degrees needs to be upped to 9 degrees for a 16 though. Thanks

Now back to the Gearcase Paper Chase and trying to find those last pesky 7mph :hi5:

[Phil S]

This is an interesting statement.....


...couldn't agree more Woobs.

[Phil S]

just wondering... do you have any friends left on here

Wondering as well....

Looking forward to seeing a bunch of friends, making new one's, and running my old tub at a couple of events this spring and summer.

Greg, come on out and join us....it's not just the internet.

Phil S.

[Greg Guimond]

You boys are a serious bunch! I'm more like this guy with this stuff...........

[Ghost]

[the thread] got you from zero to 65% that Lou went 84mph, now that's ironic. :smile:

lol, you'd be absolutely right except that was a ploy by me a couple weeks back to try to get you to say you were at 100%. A handful of folks knew about it--thought I had a shot but alas, it topped out at 95.

[Greg Guimond]

You clever prankster ................ :D I was starting to get concerned. When you and I both agreed that horsepower was horsepower that was one thing, but if you were to agree with me on Dr. Lou's claim of 84 I would have to shut the thread down before the first day of Spring. Buizilla telling me to go f myself is no problema, but you and me agreeing on TWO things will be an absolute show stopper before WBT ends on March 20th :yes:

[Greg Guimond]

The countdown begins. 10 days until Spring :thewave: and the end of winter banter. Still no sign of how I'll account for the missing 7mph though :lame2:

[Ed Donnelly]

Hey I found it. Not the missing 7 m.p.h. though
I found the missing day. Its 11 days til spring
Spring starts on the 20th not the 19th
Lou told me so, so it must be true....Ed

[Greg Guimond]

Ahh hah Sir Ed, that extra day will be key. It gives me more time to work the abacus :yippie: as I'm not that good with all them numbers. Also, although the test was to an 18 Classic, it's mildly interesting to see how raising a gearcase correlates to increases in speed. Looks like 1" higher gained 2mph in top end. Does that mean if Rootsy went from 5 1/8" deep to 4 1/8" deep that he would have 83mph? Probably.



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.
.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Greg , I know you really (repeat 10x's) want to believe that this SS powered 16ob did 84 mph . So badly in fact that you'll theorize/fantasize endlessly about finding this mythical 7mph.
It still does not mean it ever happened . I spent many an hour back in the mid 70's helping prep my old boss's SS powered Molinari cat for Sunday races including buffing the lower unit to perfection.
I still can not see this engine pushing a 16ob to 84 mph .
Until I (and a lot of others) see a video/gps proving it I'm at about 3%. If that.

My friend Danny who used to have a Bench Seat Hornet with a 289 Holman Moody used to tell people , when asked how fast , that the boat did 'under 70'.
It sure sounded like an 80mph boat but only did about 48mph . All the onlookers heard was 70 and they swallowed the whole line . In their mind it WAS a high 60's boat.

[Greg Guimond]

Greg , I know you really (repeat 10x's) want to believe that this SS powered 16ob did 84 mph . So badly in fact that you'll theorize/fantasize endlessly about finding this mythical 7mph.
It still does not mean it ever happened . I spent many an hour back in the mid 70's helping prep my old boss's SS powered Molinari cat for Sunday races including buffing the lower unit to perfection.
I still can not see this engine pushing a 16ob to 84 mph .
Until I (and a lot of others) see a video/gps proving it I'm at about 3%. If that.

My friend Danny who used to have a Bench Seat Hornet with a 289 Holman Moody used to tell people , when asked how fast , that the boat did 'under 70'.
It sure sounded like an 80mph boat but only did about 48mph . All the onlookers heard was 70 and they swallowed the whole line . In their mind it WAS a high 60's boat.

Ok, did you believe that a 16 did 77.7 with a 225?

Everyone has a perspective for sure MC. I find Dr. Lou's claim of 84mph interesting and plausible as one of only 10 owners of 16 OB's on this entire site. I also see no reason why he's not being truthful. I'm not sure who your bud Danny was feeding his speeds to but it wasn't anyone with much real world experience I suspect. The actual fact is I'd really rather have my WBT blown up with certainty, given it would make me feel a heck of a lot better with the speeds my own boat has seen. For me, the fun is in the exploration about old versus new Donzi stuff. Now anyone who has been in small performance boats (especially a Donzi 16) capable of doing 60, then 70, and then 80 knows that the operator doesn't make a 10mph chits and giggles mistake as I believe Sir Ed D said early on to woobs. He's a man without a picture or a video but triple digits in his resume.

Put Dr. Lou aside though for just a moment and I actually have two quick questions for you MC .....

#1. Do you agree with Ghost that "horsepower is horsepower" no matter how many cubes it might come from?
#2. Did you ever think that the Puerto Rico 16 OB could clock 77.7GPS with a 225 and do you now agree that it is fact?

Looking forward to your two answers MC. Thank you.

[Greg Guimond]

10 days to go till Spring and just crested 30,000 views but no answer yet from Morgan's Cloud. He must be out boating. :screwy:

[Ed Donnelly]

Only 100,000 views behind George
I don't think anyone will ever top him
And he isn't finished yet...Ed

[Morgan's Cloud]

10 days to go till Spring and just crested 30,000 views but no answer yet from Morgan's Cloud. He must be out boating. :screwy:

You're the one who wants to debate this fantasy , not so much me.
I base what I chose to believe in on my life boating experiences , not what someone else said.
In cases like Ed's , Geo's , Rootsy's and a good few others here their claims are substantiated by other members here who have seen it .
Out here in the boonies if someone tells me their boat does xx mph and it's an extraordinary number considering what they're working with I'll believe it when I see it.
You know .. It either makes sense , or it does not .

I know this isn't the answer you're looking for but there's a reason for that .

[Greg Guimond]

Only 100,000 views behind George. I don't think anyone will ever top him. And he isn't finished yet...Ed

He'll never be caught. I'm just going for top 5. :hyper:

[Greg Guimond]

You're the one who wants to debate this fantasy , not so much me. I base what I chose to believe in on my life boating experiences , not what someone else said. In cases like Ed's , Geo's , Rootsy's and a good few others here their claims are substantiated by other members here who have seen it . Out here in the boonies if someone tells me their boat does xx mph and it's an extraordinary number considering what they're working with I'll believe it when I see it. You know .. It either makes sense , or it does not. I know this isn't the answer you're looking for but there's a reason for that .

Yep, I base what I choose to believe on my life long boating experiences just like you so we have that in common and disagreeing on things is cool. One thing though I learned long ago is don't be swayed by institutional thinking. Jim Wynne crossed the Atlantic going from London to New York in 11 days in an outboard powered 22' boat? Impossible, right? I like to poke around a topic a bit first. My Dad went solo from New York through Canada to Alaska's Bering Strait and back on his bike for his 75th birthday. Always good to poke around a bit before you say it can't be done.

I suspected you would not answer those two simple questions. If you answered yes to both ...........

#1. Do you agree with Ghost that "horsepower is horsepower" no matter how many cubes it might come from?
#2. Did you ever think that the Puerto Rico 16 OB could clock 77.7GPS with a 225 and do you now agree that it is fact?

then things could get closer to 84 quickly. One thing that I have found very interesting in this thread is how folks will go after me in various forms. I admit I get a kick out of it because it keeps the thread going. But then, when I ask a direct question like I did with you MC, they won't answer for some unknown fear. If someone asks me BBC or SBC performance stuff or whatever the first thing I say is "I don't have any experience, your asking the wrong guy, go ask Buizzilla or many others and I can learn something". Buizilla goes to the mat saying that 77.7 is impossible with a stock 225, says he has a video that shows it was modded. I say great, I'm curious post the video, he tells me to go _ _ _ _ myself and deletes all his posts. What's the big deal about a video if you have it? If I ask Ghost what his experience is with OBs and 16s he won't answer. What's the big deal? If you don't have any experience just say so. N20, on the other hand posts a pic of his 16 with great detailed data. How fast were you going? 65.7 in the one picture Greg and 41 in the second. Where was the propshaft on your OB boat that pulled 84? Dead even with the keel Greg. Ask a question, he gives an answer. Doesn't mean he agrees with Dr. Lou's claim, he 100% disagrees.

So ...... 9 Days to go till Spring and three more questions for you MC -

1. How many venturis did your boss's Evinrude race motor have?
2. Did that race motor have a jack plate?
3. Who on the board ever witnessed Ed D laying down 100mph in his 16?

[Greg Guimond]

Only 100,000 views behind George
I don't think anyone will ever top him
And he isn't finished yet...Ed

Mr. Carter also has something to say in his amazing build thread, whereas mine is more about bench race banter, blue smoke, and hearing myself drone on and on until 3/20 :doh:

[Just Say N20]

Talk about running clean! I would love to see the height of this set up's prop shaft and what kind of lower his is running.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Any idea what speed that Powercraft was running ?

[woobs]

Any idea what speed that Powercraft was running ?
84mph...

[Greg Guimond]

Talk about running clean! I would love to see the height of this set up's prop shaft and what kind of lower his is running.

Dang it N20, you just pushed this threads views into Top 5 of all time and I still got 9 days left :shades:

You know this I'm sure but the lower unit in that picture (incredible shot) is a modern 2.5 Sportmaster. Now the Sporty, a lower unit that you can buy today new for $6,250 from Merc, has a bullet diameter of 4.75". The first guy to guess what the bullet diameter of the Super Strangler gearcase is correctly wins a hydrodynamic gold star and an '07 Yates Alden Perry to hit me over the head with before decanting.

hint: think e-drive

[Greg Guimond]

I'm still wondering how Rootsy got 81mph out of 350 cubic inches and with a fairly deep drive .............

Bill N20 16 - AQ290 drive - Propshaft Centerline 9 3/4" below the 16s keel -- (Bill has to measure exact propshaft depth)

Factory 16 ................... AQ280 drive c.1979 ............. Propshaft Centerline 9 1/4" below the 16s keel ----------------- 290hp = elders consensus 55mph
Factory 16 ................... AQ280 E-race drive c.1974 ... Propshaft Centerline 7 1/8" below the 16s keel ----------------- 290hp = elders consensus 61mph
Forrest's 1972 16 ......... Alpha SS drive c.1987 .......... Propshaft Centerline 5 1/8" below the 16s keel ----------------- 292hp dyno'd Ford 302 = 69.7mph GPS
Rootsy's 1997 16 ......... Alpha SS drive c.1988 .......... Propshaft Centerline confirmed 5 1/8" below the 16s keel ----- 413hp dyno'd Chevy 350 = 81.3mph GPS (secret piece of mo dart thrower data missing here)

1967 #452 16 ......................... Johnson OB Lower Unit ..... Propshaft centerline assumed 5" below the 16s keel ------- 1998 210hp Johnson = claimed 68mph
1975 Puerto Rico 16 OB Baby .... Merc TM OB Lower Unit .... Propshaft centerline confirmed 2" below the 16s keel ------ 2004 225hp Merc EFI = GPS 77.7mph
1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race = claimed 84mph

[Greg Guimond]

One way was he did a ton of tweaking over time and one of the things he found out was that going away from the Alpha SS gearcase that Forrest and others used with great results would offer a speed advantage. He ended up choosing an O/B gearcase (yep) of about 1985 vintage. A picture of one is below. Why use an old OB gearcase instead of the proven Alpha SS? Because it is a little slimmer and he could make it work on his Alpha SS upper to make his 16 go faster. He gained the depth advantage of the Alpha SS which allowed him to run 5" below the keel AND he added the advantage of a slimmer lower than the Alpha SS Lower Unit. Again, a simple proposition, less gearcase and skeg in the water equals a faster boat. This is why the Puerto Rico 16 OB can do 77mph and the #452 16 OB can only do 68mph even though both motors are V6's. #452 has to run its drive at 5" deep (Matty can confirm) like Rootsy had to.

[Greg Guimond]

Rootsy's gearcase (pic above)was fairly rare and he did a little mod to it as well. He ended up filing off the blowout ring. The blowout ring is on a wacker for when they are surfacing. Rootsy was deep at 5" so it was not helping him. I've seen guys even file off 1/2 of the ring to gain 1mph. Go figure. Also of interest is that Rootsy ran a Cleaver prop for most of his testing just like Dr. Lou would have run. At the very end Rootsy switched to a Hydro prop. When he decided to get out of the 80mph secret hand shake 16 club I bought that prop from him I believe years ago. I can't really remember now as I have about 15 props on the wall. Most of the Alpha SS drives (vintage '87) have the water inlets just above the bullets point. Notice that his inlets are on the side in the picture above. He went on to sell the drive for $3k. The other thing of interest in the Alpha SS (pic below) is the length of the skeg. They are not as long as the lower unit on the Puerto Rico 225 OB motor. Not a big deal at the 5" depth Rootsy was running but gets to be far more important when you are running a gearcase at 2" or higher like David in Puerto Rico did to get 77.

[Greg Guimond]

• My Laser was 16' as a model designation. I never measured it, but it certainly wasn't 17'.

• My Laser was a shallow V with a pad bottom, not a tunnel or modified tunnel like the STV that Roark Summerford made later.

• Weight; I was told by Roark, who made the boat, that it weighed between 450 - 500 lbs rigged, which would have been an aluminum fuel tank of around 22 gallons, 4 gauges, and a single cable steering. I never weighed the boat. I added a manual aluminum jack plate, foot throttle, and dual cable steering. The boat was very low profile, in that the rear bench seat back barely hit a passenger's belt line on their pants.

• The lower unit was stock for a V6 200, of about 1980 vintage. I added a nose cone that was NOT parabolic with a point extending out beyond the bullet of the gear case. The nose cone was straight vertical line up the front of the gear case with water intakes on the bottom front of the bullet, running plumbing up both sides to get enough water flow/pressure. I was running a teflon coated Stainless cleaver, 31".

• The highest I ran it, for max top speed was with the prop shaft level/even with the pad on the hull. This meant that half the lower unit gear case was in the water. Any higher and I lost water pressure, so testing without cooling was out of the question.

Bill, if you recall, what year was your Laser 16 V bottom and what year was your 20" Johnson V6 200 O/B that was on it?

[Just Say N20]

If there is no gun to my head, I believe I had the boat made in 1981, maybe early 1982. The first engine on it was a new V4 140 hp Evinrude, a 1982 I believe. I then moved from Houston to Rockford Illinois in the Fall of 1982. In 1983 I traded up to the same year V6 Evinrude 200.

[Greg Guimond]

If there is no gun to my head, I believe I had the boat made in 1981, maybe early 1982. The first engine on it was a new V4 140 hp Evinrude, a 1982 I believe. I then moved from Houston to Rockford Illinois in the Fall of 1982. In 1983 I traded up to the same year V6 Evinrude 200.

Thanks, was your 1983 200 a 2.7L or a 3.0L ?

[Just Say N20]

Greg, this would appear to be a good mission for you.

I can find no documentation regarding the actual year of the engine. The 140 and 200 were the same year, and had a unique cowling which was only offered one year. They had a Sport designation.

As a starting point, they would have to be in the 1980 - 1983 range, but have not been able to verify. Once the year is determined, I'm sure the displacement becomes an easy one.

[Just Say N20]

Any idea what speed that Powercraft was running ?

I was thinking that was an Allison.

I have no idea at the speed, just lifted the picture and posted it here.

[Greg Guimond]

If there is no gun to my head, I believe I had the boat made in 1981, maybe early 1982. The first engine on it was a new V4 140 hp Evinrude, a 1982 I believe. I then moved from Houston to Rockford Illinois in the Fall of 1982. In 1983 I traded up to the same year V6 Evinrude 200.


Greg, this would appear to be a good mission for you.

I can find no documentation regarding the actual year of the engine. The 140 and 200 were the same year, and had a unique cowling which was only offered one year. They had a Sport designation.

As a starting point, they would have to be in the 1980 - 1983 range, but have not been able to verify. Once the year is determined, I'm sure the displacement becomes an easy one.


Bill, that should be a quick search but just so that I'm clear, as you jog your memory more, you now believe that BOTH of your Evinrude OB's were actually the same year?

[Just Say N20]

I am positive that both were the same year, and I'm beginning to think it was 1981. I purchased the V4 140 new at the same time I had the boat built, and mounted it myself.

After I ran it a couple of years, and moved to Rockford, Illinois, I traded it in on the used V6 200. I remember being really pleased about it because I liked how the 140 engine looked, and couldn't believe my luck when I found a 200 with the same cowl.

[Greg Guimond]

I am positive that both were the same year, and I'm beginning to think it was 1981. I purchased the V4 140 new at the same time I had the boat built, and mounted it myself. After I ran it a couple of years, and moved to Rockford, Illinois, I traded it in on the used V6 200. I remember being really pleased about it because I liked how the 140 engine looked, and couldn't believe my luck when I found a 200 with the same cowl.

Bill, if both the 140 V4 and the 200 V6 had power trim then they both would have been 1981 models only. The V6 200 would have been 149cu.in. The 140's were known to be strong motors. I think you said it pushed your V to 68mph sitting directly on the transom. Do you recall the speeds you were getting with the 200 before you added low water pickup and jackplate?

[Just Say N20]

Yup. 74 on RADAR running down the Rock River. I was very disappointed thinking that adding another 60 hp should have picked up the top speed more than 6 mph in that type of boat.

By playing with engine height , and adding the nose cone, I eventually found another 10+ mph.

And both engines had power trim.

I added the nose cone because during one speed run I had a blow out at 78 mph, and almost bought the farm.

[Greg Guimond]

Yup. 74 on RADAR running down the Rock River. I was very disappointed thinking that adding another 60 hp should have picked up the top speed more than 6 mph in that type of boat. By playing with engine height , and adding the nose cone, I eventually found another 10+ mph. And both engines had power trim. I added the nose cone because during one speed run I had a blow out at 78 mph, and almost bought the farm.

Hold the phone, you went a consistent 10mph faster, and a best of 13mph faster, just by taking the motors propshaft centerline up from 5" below the keel line to dead even and coning it? No engine mods whatsoever to the 1981 200 Evinrude 2.4L V6? How many inches of setback was the jack plate and did you need to use wedges?

[Just Say N20]

The setback was at most 6". And that is correct, I did no engine performance mods.

But remember this was a super light, shallow V, potato chip boat with a pad and a notched transom. So it was the best scenario for a non-tunnel hull boat, for picking up additional speed.

[Greg Guimond]

The setback was at most 6". And that is correct, I did no engine performance mods.

But remember this was a super light, shallow V, potato chip boat with a pad and a notched transom. So it was the best scenario for a non-tunnel hull boat, for picking up additional speed.

I'm safe until the Spring deadline as it was 14 degrees this morning even though it was 61 degrees yesterday. I have to say though when I see the progression you made with a 500lb hull versus Dr. Lou's 1000lb 16 -

99 cubic inch V4 - no setback, 5" below the keel = 68mph
150 cubic inch V6 - no setback, 5" below the keel = 74mph
150 cubic inch V6 - 6" setback, even with the keel = 87mph

A few things come to mind. First, I think one item everyone thought was that your V6 was either the 2.7L or the 3.0L motor. In fact, it was only 2.4L. So that kind of solidifies the horsepower is horsepower issue. The second is that your motor(s) would have been flywheel rated as the rules did not change until 1984. The Super Strangler was propshaft rated from the get go so it would have an advantage over your 200. The third and biggest item is that you gained 10-13mph by raising the motor to even and coning it. Say 11mph constantly. I have been making this point throughout and it seems to fall right in line with E-drives giving +6mph, and Alpha SS's giving +10mph. Higher and slimmer equals faster. The Super Strangler could have easily run even with the keel or say 1" below on a 16 just like you did with your coned gearcase. No problem.

I have to think about the 500lb advantage and the pad.................

[Ghost]

Where has anyone given evidence of the SS being rated at the propshaft versus the flywheel? (Recall I t wasn't even HP rated by the factory, at least their own glossy says it isn't. ). All I've seen about the actual HP are posts from people who say they dyno'd it back in the day and their best recollection was 185HP (at the highest, others said lower). No sign of how it was measured in what I recall seeing.

[Greg Guimond]

Where has anyone given evidence of the SS being rated at the propshaft versus the flywheel? (Recall I t wasn't even HP rated by the factory, at least their own glossy says it isn't. ). All I've seen about the actual HP are posts from people who say they dyno'd it back in the day and their best recollection was 185HP (at the highest, others said lower). No sign of how it was measured in what I recall seeing.

6 more days to Spring Ghost :hyper:

The HP info below came from John Sheldon (in his 60s now) who was a part of the OMC engineering team that supported the Race division. He worked for Charlie Strang and Edgar Rose who I guess were "top management" and then he went on to do extensive work with the OMC experimental Rotary. Jack Leek actually ran the race team ops on a day to day basis including races like Parker where the Super Strangler had to run for 27 hours straight (aka durable) with three different drivers. John Sheldon was not on the circuit, he was in the labs. I've said this numerous times to guys here, including woobs who aren't familiar with OB stuff but the factory would never "publish" horsepower in there glossy. That would have been absurd given the war with Merc. Secrets were a big part of the game back then and remember, no cell phones and no internet to quickly disclose the secrets.


Guys: The factory race engine of the early '70s used 2 Mec power trim units; one for trim (in & out) and one for lift. I actually designed and built a single pump unit as a weight saving that did both, but since Blanchard didn't design it, it was never used. The V-4's put out 180/185 PROPSHAFT hp at the time. That's why when the rotary hit at 265 PROPSHAFT hp they were so dominant.

[Greg Guimond]

But remember this was a super light, shallow V, potato chip boat with a pad and a notched transom. So it was the best scenario for a non-tunnel hull boat, for picking up additional speed.

I thought more on this. The 500lb weight savings is an eye opener but I wonder a bit about the pad. One example is Sutphen. Matty said there 21 is a raised pad bottom hull but that is not accurate. It is round bottom like a Donzi. That hull clocked 93.4 with a stock 525, 10mph faster than Carl with his 22 Classic. In addition, the Puerto Rico 16 OB baby clocked 77.7 with no pad. My point is that it is becoming VERY clear that round bottoms are acting somewhat similar to raised pads PROVIDED the speeds are high and the drive is super high. The other thing is my pad bottom only got a best of 79mph and I'm a pretty decent driver.

Now the 500lb difference is interesting. The common theory is that you loose 1mph for each 100lbs of weight you add in this class. I think your best speed Bill was 87mph with propshaft HP of say 185. Dr. Lou's was a claim of 84 with 200hp. The Super Stranglers ran 190psi of compression and 7200 redline.

[Just Say N20]

I would qualify the weight statement to include "on the same hull."

I think it is dangerous to make conclusions that my Laser would be 5 mph faster than a 16 Donzi because it weighs 500 lbs less. Hull design also plays a big part of the equation.

[Greg Guimond]

Reasonable observation especially with Roark doing the Laser build before he went on to 120mph STV's. 120mph in that small a boat? F that thank you! What do you make of the Puerto Rico 16 OB with non pad hull doing 77mph? I 105% acknowledge your opinion based on your experience but every time a Donzi 16 owner has raised the drive height or changed the aspect ratio to thinner/longer the boats have gone faster. You did it on your Laser and gained 13 mph (my first BIG font) or 10mph every day.

The Sutphen 21 below runs super fast with a round bottom. David in Puerto Rico running his case at 2" below the pad on his 16 is 3" higher than Rootsy AND his gearcase is way thicker than both Rootsy (81) and Forrest (70) with 300hp. Rootsy switched from an Alpha SS lower and went the darkside with OB Merc Mod VP case. The Super Strangler's gearcase is by FAR the narrowest of any of them, it could run higher than any of them, the Merc 225 does not even come close, my Sportmaster does not even come close but has a very similar shape, maybe Merc copied the Super Strangler?

[Greg Guimond]

And here is the sought after Alpha SS with CLE gearcase. Not even remotely close to the Super Strangler gearcase.

[Greg Guimond]

I would not do the stern jack. Rootsy did not and that guy tried everything. Here is his gearcase advertisement .............

[dsparis]

Ok G.G you win. I recently spoke to a friend of mine whos an engineer (he drives a train, but an engineer non the less). He says Dr. Lou mounted the super duper 200 hp outboard UPSIDE DOWN. Thats right upside down. He then hand whittled an air boat type prop out of a rare Honduran teak / Moroccan mahogany hybrid tree that he had grafted together years earlier. The doc then mounted the top secret prop to the one off (even race teams didn't get them) 200 hp 100 ci race motor. This setup allowed for NO HYDRO DRAG ! Viola 84 mph on Biscayne Bay. But, word got about about the seemingly impossible feat. The big outboard and prop makers didn't like this at all. They called their buddies in the gov. and said this new setup was a threat to national security. So the F.B.I., C.I.A., N.S.A., etc Tuckered him. Remember the Tucker car company ? The last my friend heard, Dr. Lou was being held at Ft. Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas charged with treason (like Dr. Mudd). Thats why NOBODY has been able to talk to him to verify any specifics on his revolutionary setup. Btw, he says Osiris Perez was actually a woman. He/she was working undercover for the K.G.B. and Castro trying to steal this new super secret technology. The last time Mr./Ms. Perez was seen was in Havana rolling cigars.

[BUIZILLA]

and the hydrodynamic drag of a cigar is?

better ask Bill Clinton :tongue:
http://www.classicraceboatassoc.com/images/TavaresSpringThunder-2013/754.JPGhttp://www.classicraceboatassoc.com/images/TavaresSpringThunder-2014/JohnTiger.jpghttp://www.classicraceboatassoc.com/102%20(2).JPG

[Greg Guimond]

Ok G.G you win.......


and the hydrodynamic drag is........

Shouldn't you two boys be out there looking for that video tape that proves the Merc 225 was modified? You know, the "smoking gun I got proof " vid? :rofl:
And if your gonna post pics, at least use a V4 and not the CCC 6. I mean Doctor Lou ONLY had a little 'ol V4 with an even littler gearcase. But hey, gearcase drag isn't a big part of how fast a boat can go, right? :rofl::rofl:

[dsparis]

I found the video !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoS-MCnTPtQ

[Ed Donnelly]

Ok G.G you win. I recently spoke to a friend of mine whos an engineer (he drives a train, but an engineer non the less). He says Dr. Lou mounted the super duper 200 hp outboard UPSIDE DOWN. Thats right upside down. He then hand whittled an air boat type prop out of a rare Honduran teak / Moroccan mahogany hybrid tree that he had grafted together years earlier. The doc then mounted the top secret prop to the one off (even race teams didn't get them) 200 hp 100 ci race motor. This setup allowed for NO HYDRO DRAG ! Viola 84 mph on Biscayne Bay. But, word got about about the seemingly impossible feat. The big outboard and prop makers didn't like this at all. They called their buddies in the gov. and said this new setup was a threat to national security. So the F.B.I., C.I.A., N.S.A., etc Tuckered him. Remember the Tucker car company ? The last my friend heard, Dr. Lou was being held at Ft. Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas charged with treason (like Dr. Mudd). Thats why NOBODY has been able to talk to him to verify any specifics on his revolutionary setup. Btw, he says Osiris Perez was actually a woman. He/she was working undercover for the K.G.B. and Castro trying to steal this new super secret technology. The last time Mr./Ms. Perez was seen was in Havana rolling cigars.


Finally the truth comes out.. I had heard rumors of this from an Eskimo (Inuit) but he had a very strong brogue and was hard to understand....Ed

[Greg Guimond]

I found the video !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoS-MCnTPtQ

4 more days until Spring dsparis. This was your 20th post in this thread. The first 19 were useless but this one is friggin funny as all get out! I see a striking resemblance to me, myself, and I !!

[Greg Guimond]

With only four days left to the Winter Banter shutdown dead line I got to looking at your posts dsparis. I was hoping that there was something in there that could push me beyond 95% probability. The funny thing is how laser focused you were on showing that the Super Stranglers made only 155hp. So much so that I guess you had a chat with one of your OB buddies to verify that the Super Strangler only made 155hp back in the '70s. But then, the even funnier thing is that when I link all your posts together below, the racer buddy that you were depending on was running an entirely different motor according to what he says below. He was racing a Merc 150 on a '70s Allison Craft which in later years became just "Allison" boats.

It looks like from your post below the only OMC motor he ever ran was a Johnson GT 115? Ask your bud what years he raced for OMC as a factory driver and who his boss was during that time? A Johnson GT 115 was an entirely different, less powerful motor than the Evinrude Super Strangler. :puke:He will know that I'm sure. It sounds like he raced both Merc and OMC motors? Thank you.



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


Still waiting


btw still waiting


And what is the verifiable hp # of the strangler ?


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


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....


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.


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.

Now I'm no factory employed OMC engineer (or even a train engineer), but the guy below was, so I tend to go with his comments over your friends about the Super Strangler horsepower. But then you knew that already. I do, however have a mean abacus, although I didn't need it for any of your posts.


Guys: The factory race engine of the early '70s used 2 Mec power trim units; one for trim (in & out) and one for lift. I actually designed and built a single pump unit as a weight saving that did both, but since Blanchard didn't design it, it was never used. The V-4's put out 180/185 PROPSHAFT hp at the time. That's why when the rotary hit at 265 PROPSHAFT hp they were so dominant.

[dsparis]

John Tiger ?

[Greg Guimond]

John Tiger ?

You should really change your screen name to Riddler. Your racing buddy's name is John Tiger? Your buddies boss was John Tiger? You drink beer with John Tiger? You once saw a guy named John wrestle a Tiger in LaLa Land? You finally realize that you have a Tiger by the tail? :boggled:

God dang it, at this rate I may never get past 95% with only 4 days left :outtahere:

[dsparis]

If you talk to Mr. Tiger tell him to have fun in Fl. this week. :cool!:

[Greg Guimond]

....

[Greg Guimond]

So still need to find 7mph .............

Bill N20 16 - AQ290 drive - Propshaft Centerline 9 3/4" below the 16s keel -- (Bill has to measure exact propshaft depth)

Factory 16 ................... AQ280 drive c.1979 ............. Propshaft Centerline 9 1/4" below the 16s keel ----------------- 290hp = elders consensus 55mph
Factory 16 ................... AQ280 E-race drive c.1974 ... Propshaft Centerline 7 1/8" below the 16s keel ----------------- 290hp = elders consensus 61mph
Forrest's 1972 16 ......... Alpha SS drive c.1987 .......... Propshaft Centerline 5 1/8" below the 16s keel ----------------- 292hp dyno'd Ford 302 = 69.7mph GPS
Rootsy's 1997 16 ......... Alpha SS drive c.1988 .......... Propshaft Centerline confirmed 5 1/8" below the 16s keel ----- 413hp dyno'd Chevy 350 = 81.3mph GPS (Rootsy chose a thinner OB gearcase)

1967 #452 16 ......................... Johnson OB Lower Unit ..... Propshaft centerline assumed 5" below the 16s keel ------- 1998 210hp Johnson = claimed 68mph (zero feedback from the owner)
1975 Puerto Rico 16 OB Baby .... Merc TM OB Lower Unit .... Propshaft centerline confirmed 2" below the 16s keel ------ 2004 225hp Merc EFI = GPS 77.7mph
1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race = claimed 84mph

[Greg Guimond]

Mercury Marine as might be suspected uses a complex tester that measures all kinds of flow, drag, and cavitation data for there OBs. Pic below ..........

[Greg Guimond]

Some of there flow data is shown below. The gearcase data in the first two images is from a drive that is the same size as the Puerto Rico 16 OB Baby's Mercury 225 O/B. The first pic in particular shows drag flow. Notice where the parasitic drag is mostly, the water inlets and the bullet. The bullet diameter in that first Mercury labs photo is 4 3/4" in diameter and the purple is pretty heavy. The third picture to the right shows the differences in having a drives propshaft centerline even with the hulls keel as compared to 3" below the keel. It also adds the actual dimensions of the gearcase that was used for the calculations. The data is for my gearcase.

Remember that Rootsy's drive was 5" below his 16s keel, Matty's #452 16 was 5" deep as well. The Puerto Rico 16 was 2" below the 16s keel and went 77. The Super Strangler is shown at 1" below Dr. Lou's 16.

[Greg Guimond]

If you are going to run the gearcase in what is known as surfacing mode at 1", most of the steering is done with the skeg. The skeg length on the Super Strangler is longer than both #452's and the Puerto Rico 16's so Dr. Lou would have more control at higher speeds. Some folks have said you can't surface a gearcase on a Donzi 16. That is malarchy (one day late) as I have done it. Dr. Lou also made a loose comment that "only the prop was in the water". There is VERY little hull in the water at these high speeds but that was already covered in the Strake Bake section of WBT '13.

[Greg Guimond]

Here are some shots of wackers in surface mode. Notice these motors have setback jacks, where the Super Strangler would have been mounted directly on the transom. At 1" deep about half the gearcase would be dragging like these photos and then of course the skeg and the spray but no Anti Ventilation plate.

[Greg Guimond]

If you know high speed OB stuff, you might say, "how can you surface a gearcase without a power jack plate?". The 16's have 20" transoms. Well, not a problem as the Super Stranglers were 15" or Short Shaft motors. Not only could they surface but the powerhead would be at a much lower center of gravity which dramatically helps stability at these high speeds. It would take longer to plane off for sure but who cares.

Below is a pic of a 15" motor mounted on a 20" transom. It's a big advantage for speed over #452 and Puerto Rico 16. At 60mph does not matter as much but at 75 and 85 there is a lot of vibration and oscillation issues to drive through and then with.

[Greg Guimond]

So now, as I look for that 7mph, lets add some of the actual bullet diameter measurements for the three OB gearcases below. Is it possible that the Super Strangler case is over 50% thinner?

1967 #452 16 ......................... Johnson OB Lower Unit ..... Propshaft centerline assumed 5" below the 16s keel ------- 1998 210hp Johnson Bullet 4 5/8" diameter = claimed 68mph (zero feedback from the owner)
1975 Puerto Rico 16 OB Baby .... Merc TM OB Lower Unit .... Propshaft centerline confirmed 2" below the 16s keel ------ 2004 225hp Merc EFI Bullet 4 3/4" diameter = GPS 77.7mph
1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race Bullet 2" diameter = claimed 84mph

[Ghost]

Don't sell yourself short, Smails, you gotta be going by cross-sectional area, not diameter. Which is proportional to the square of the diameter. That said, a 2" diameter bullet?! That seems hard to believe. Gotta be bigger than THAT, right? Where's that pic again?

[Greg Guimond]

Don't sell yourself short, Smails, you gotta be going by cross-sectional area, not diameter. Which is proportional to the square of the diameter. That said, a 2" diameter bullet?! That seems hard to believe. Gotta be bigger than THAT, right? Where's that pic again?

Ahh, math guy is back :eek: You never did answer directly if you believe that David in Puerto Rico did 77.7mph with a 225 Merc running 2" below the pad. Care to now with two days to go in LaLa Land?

[Ghost]

Ahh, math guy is back :eek: You never did answer directly if you believe that David in Puerto Rico did 77.7mph with a 225 Merc running 2" below the pad. Care to now with two days to go in LaLa Land?

Oh, didn't know then, nor now. (For the record, if you looked back, I think you'd see a whole lot of questions that you've left unanswered from folks as well.)

[Greg Guimond]

Oh, didn't know then, nor now. (For the record, if you looked back, I think you'd see a whole lot of questions that you've left unanswered from folks as well.)

For the Banter BS record, I've answered any question that was asked of me. The answers tended to be, "yes", "no", or "I believe it happened". Yes, I will find you a gearcase pic later as well so you can have at the MIT math around this, that, and the other thing. You have 48 hours though before I leave LaLa Land for Spring :yes:

Now, let's take a look at the Puerto Rico 77mph 16 OB Baby ......

1. we have a youtube clip which you've watched,
2. we have not one but two GPS pics of the speeds,
3. we have the commentary of the guy who owned the boat about how he set the Donzi up to achieve 77.7mph,
4. we have the size and style of prop the owner used,
5. we have a speed going out of 76.3mph, and then an immediate turnaround speed coming back of 77.7mph,
6. we know that he has owned not one but two 16 OB Baby's each with different power, one a 200hp and one the 225hp wacker,
7. we know the exact gearcase model he used to get 77.7,
8. we know the distance he ran that specific gearcase was 2" below the keel of the 16,
9. we know the diameter of the bullet as compared to Rootsy's and Dr. Lou's.
10.we even know how much fuel he carried to achieve 77.7mph.

Ghost, sometimes you just need to take a position with a simple one sentence answer in small font :rolleyes:
Next to my rude and ridiculous comment about Brownie, and woobs actually feeling that Dr. Lou had his GPS mistakenly set to km/hr to get a reading of 84kmh, you have a clear hold on 3rd place on bizarre!

Wait, that's not actually fair, you easily have 2nd place :biggrin.:

[woobs]

For the Banter BS record, I've answered any question that was asked of me. The answers tended to be, "yes", "no", or "I believe it happened".

Uhmmmm, errrr no. Not exactly.... If memory serves, there have been quite a few "I'll get to that later..." instances and either feigning ignorance or ignoring questions all together over the many pages of this thread. (No, I'm not going to look them up.)

FWIW: I never said Dr. Miracle was reading metric... I offered it as a suggestion or possibility that would believably fill the facts and let the tin hat brigade save some face on the explanation of the 84 claim. (Sometimes, the simple answers ARE the truth) However, I don't hold your half-truth accusation against you... as you have mishandled so much information over the course of this discussion that this transgression is really quite minor.

And while we are at it... why must people "believe" or "agree" with this 77.7mph claim?
If you have stated your argument and backed it with facts you shouldn't require the "approval" of other participants.... unless, you are setting some sort of trap to belittle the other participant. Or, maybe you are just that unsure of your facts that you require approval of others. Either way it's unnecessary as if someone does not believe a statement they can offer arguments to the contrary if desired.

[Greg Guimond]

Uhmmmm, errrr no. Not exactly.... If memory serves, there have been quite a few "I'll get to that later..." instances and either feigning ignorance or ignoring questions all together over the many pages of this thread. (No, I'm not going to look them up.)

FWIW: I never said Dr. Miracle was reading metric... I offered it as a suggestion or possibility that would believably fill the facts and let the tin hat brigade save some face on the explanation of the 84 claim. However, I don't hold your half-truth accusation against you... as you have mishandled so much information over the course of this discussion that this transgression is really quite minor.

And while we are at it... why must people "believe" or "agree" with this 77.7mph claim?
If you have stated your argument and backed it with facts you shouldn't require the "approval" of other participants.... unless, you are setting some sort of trap to belittle the other participant. Or, maybe you are just that unsure of your facts that you require approval of others. Either way it's unnecessary as if someone does not believe a statement they can offer arguments to the contrary if desired.

woobs is back again for some buzzer beaters. It's all in good fun and no one has to agree or believe, but it's also fine to ask and ask straight out, choose yes or no based on what you have in front of you. Wasn't it you who kept telling me "own it" again and again? Now, if you think offering metric was believable and a way for Lou (or me) to save face ....... that a long time boater like Sir Lou (or even looney me) thought he was going 84mph and was actually going 52mph? That he was confused to the tune of 32mph?? Bottle that and I'll be your US distributor. I'll just stop with saying ..........yikes, you two guys are actually tied for second place :doh:

[woobs]

I'll just stop

Oh, only IF I could believe this to be true...... :worthy:

[Greg Guimond]

Oh, only IF I could believe this is true......

Now THAT's the pot calling the kettle black as they say! Congrats, with that post you now have 3rd place for total replies in this thread. A shared Silver and snaring your own Bronze with less than 48 hours to go. :worthy:

[Greg Guimond]

Back to the 7mph gearcase paper chase. Here is a visual comparison of the three wacker drives ...........

[Greg Guimond]

Here is the comparison of all the drives discussed with some measurements as well as the waterline levels at speed ............

[Greg Guimond]

Here is the Super Strangler sitting next to the Johnson case that would be on the mysterious 1967 #452 16 .................

[Greg Guimond]

Here is a picture of the Super Strangler gearcase as compared to the Mercury gearcase that went 77mph ...........

[Greg Guimond]

And here is a close up of the Super Strangler gearcase. Notice the location of the low water pickups. This would allow the Super Strangler to run 1" below the keel just like .............

[Greg Guimond]

this guy is doing which provides a good visual example. Remember, Rootsy, Forest, and #452 ran at 5" below the keel. Puerto Rico ran at 2" below the keel. Dr. Lou ran at 1"

Higher and thinner is faster?

[MDonziM]

Funny, this was the competition I guess when the 16' came out...

[MDonziM]

1964 17' Chris Craft Super Sport. The Donzi must have looked like a space ship next to it.

[Greg Guimond]

1964 17' Chris Craft Super Sport. The Donzi must have looked like a space ship next to it.

Wow, that's for sure.

[Greg Guimond]

On September 9, 1974 Gerry Walin attempted to break the 136mph world record in Parker, Arizona upping the record he already held at 131mph. It was 117 degrees at 9:45am. The motor on the back of the boat was a 99ci Evinrude V4 running a special lower unit and a 4 pipe open exhaust. The "little motor that could".

[jl1962]

Here is the comparison of all the drives discussed with some measurements as well as the waterline levels at speed ............

Good recap, Greg!

1400+ posts distilled to one!

Spring starts tomorrow
:)

[BUIZILLA]

what is the strangler gearcase diameter in the middle? directly above the leading edge of the skeg? it's not 2",,,, the gear diameter itself at that intersection is much larger than that..

[Greg Guimond]

what is the strangler gearcase diameter in the middle? directly above the leading edge of the skeg? it's not 2",,,, the gear diameter itself at that intersection is much larger than that..

Yep, 4 hours to Spring, a "10 knot" blow boaters paradise jl1962, and the end of Banter '13!

To be exact BUIZILLA you'd need a set of calipers from woobs but it's about 3" right there above the skeg. Substantially less than Forest's Alpha SS, Rootsy's Mod VP, #452s Johnson 3L gearcase, and most importantly, the Puerto Rico 16s Merc 225 Torquemaster dimensions that achieved 77. That is only a part of it though as you all know. The other big advantage is the location of the low water pickups. Without those you can't run the Super Strangler case 1" below or even with the the keel line. A long aspect ratio bullet like the Super Strangler gearcase needs to run at the surface to be fast.

1967 #452 16 ......................... Johnson OB Lower Unit ..... Propshaft centerline assumed 5" below the 16s keel ------- 1998 210hp Johnson Bullet 4 5/8" diameter = claimed 68mph ( zero feedback from the owner who is alive and runs the boat)
1975 Puerto Rico 16 OB Baby .... Merc TM OB Lower Unit .... Propshaft centerline confirmed 2" below the 16s keel ------ 2004 225hp Merc EFI Bullet 4 3/4" diameter = GPS 77.7mph
1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race Bullet 2" diameter = claimed 84mph

[Carl C]

"1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race Bullet 2" diameter = claimed 84mph"

I believe it!

[Greg Guimond]

"1965 Gerry Walin/Dr Lou 16 ...... Super Strangler Lower ...... Propshaft centerline assumed 1" below the 16s keel ------- 1975 200hp Evinrude KR15 Race Bullet 2" diameter = claimed 84mph" I believe it!

I dunno Carl, I'm still at 95% with only 3 hours to go till Spring. I have one last person I am waiting to hear from with some key info this evening.

Below is the 1975 Super Strangler gearcase along side todays 2005 Sportmaster gearcase. The Merc Sporty's also carry 4 3/4" bullet at the back end. A clear example of how newer is not always better!

[Greg Guimond]

The last bit of info is in ..........

[Carl C]

The Strangler is designed for an over hub prop like a mazco RE3.

Spring doesn't start until 1 PM Eastern time . . . . . . . . . :eek:

[Just Say N20]

Greg's attachment.

I hate downloading things to look at them.

[woobs]

Well, yes. Even though I have not owned this particular boat for very long I do know how fast MY Donzi goes.

74.56454306848 mph. This was measured by GPS on November 16, 2013. The conditions of the day were cool and clear with only a light ripple on the water.

To achieve this amazing speed with an early stock hull Ski Sporter and just 175 HP to work with... she was rigged light... and for the purpose of making time and distance with carefully regulated speed. I don't know exactly how much fuel was in the tank but, it seemed like just fumes.

I can't say she had a Super Strangler bolted on the back but, she was really hooked up and the hull was completely "aired out". I can guarantee the hydrodynamic drag was at an absolute minimum during this run, the strakes did not come in to play and the angle of attack was less than 5 degrees.

Despite having recorded this top speed of 74.56454306848 mph; acceleration was good but I could have gone faster. I didn't push it as I was also considering fuel mileage however, I'm pretty sure that no other boat we saw went past us that day.

Here is a pic of the set up... (The only way this boat does 74.56454306848 mph)

.79078

[woobs]

So now Spring is here (at least on the calendar) and this thread has apparently come to an end...

Greg,

You say you have answered ALL questions. I would say these have been hanging for a while. We (I) have been waiting about 500 posts for this, and endured many more than that. Would you please NOW let us all in on how an early stock hull Ski Sporter 16 rigged with a 99.4 cid v4 185hp Super Strangler posted 84mph in the real world?

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 to make these estimates?

Please lay this out completely in a logical explanation so even I can understand it.
or does that last 5% mean this was all Bull****e and even you can't buy in to 84mph.
It's either possible...or it's not.

[Ed Donnelly]

Did everyone forget about this 16 ????


one of a kind 16 baby outboard
covered garaged doctors toy. no more coke bottle bottom. 9 inch pad grafted into hull. hydrolic steering, mach crt on wheel, custom BBracet 6" set back. 35 gallon gas tank mounted in the rear. almost perfect paint white blue stripe, blue interior. all guages. tach press speed temp trim hours volts gas . foot pedal. brand new SOUTH FLORIDA TRAILERS custom 18 roller aluminum trailer. anal compulsively rigged. military spec wiring. last rigged with a evinrude 225 82mph on gps . only needs motor. four bolts, plug in harness bolt on steering ram and hook up pressure hose and temp guage wire. will only sell to buyers who physically come to look at boat. original family owner. custom cover


.................................................. ......Ed

[mattyboy]

so now the Dr's boat has a pad and a bracket and a 225 rude oh wait I slept thru intermission this was the way Don sold it to bryant's in 65 right ??????

:kyle: OH My God they've killed Kenny ! :stan:

[BUIZILLA]

and it only ran 82 with a 225.........

so the ever elusive 84 with 2 people is still out there, just like MH370... where oh where is the hard evidence

[Greg Guimond]

Hmm, looks like the "Three Wise Men" are back on a rain soaked Saturday :rolleyes:

[Greg Guimond]

So now Spring is here (at least on the calendar) and this thread has apparently come to an end...

Greg,

You say you have answered ALL questions. I would say these have been hanging for a while. We (I) have been waiting about 500 posts for this, and endured many more than that. Would you please NOW let us all in on how an early stock hull Ski Sporter 16 rigged with a 99.4 cid v4 185hp Super Strangler posted 84mph in the real world?

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 to make these estimates?

Please lay this out completely in a logical explanation so even I can understand it.
or does that last 5% mean this was all Bull****e and even you can't buy in to 84mph.
It's either possible...or it's not.

I'll happily answer this woobs, once you answer what fast outboards you have owned over the years?

[Greg Guimond]

and it only ran 82 with a 225.........so the ever elusive 84 with 2 people is still out there, just like MH370... where oh where is the hard evidence

Lou never claimed 84 with 2 peeps and you've had a month now to find your "smoking gun" video that proves the Merc 225 was modified to achieve 77mph. Looking forward to seeing it once you post the hard evidence! :rofl:

[Greg Guimond]

so now the Dr's boat has a pad and a bracket and a 225 rude oh wait I slept thru intermission this was the way Don sold it to bryant's in 65 right ?????? :kyle: OH My God they've killed Kenny ! :stan:

I'm not sure where Sir Ed D got that pad 16 info but he gets a pass on everything given he busted the century mark with his 16 back in the 1970's I think. Ed can confirm what decade it was, is there a picture for Buizilla? I was hoping by now that the write-up you were going to do about the 1967 #452 16 would have been finished Matty. I think you have been working with the owner behind the scenes to put all the information together about how it was rigged and how long he has owned it. It sounds like he has owned the 16 for at least a decade if not more. Does the owner ever go to his second home in the islands (what island again?) to visit the boat? It must not get much use going 68mph down there which is a shame.

There should be an interview with the owner (does he have a name like Dr. Lou?) about it to get the details straight, and into the elders archives. :yes:

[Greg Guimond]

Ahh, Dr. Lou's 4 pipe open exhaust howls again with Gerry Walin at the helm of the little 99ci motor that could.

.............. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1BjISnm9GU#t=470

Cool video tribute :clap:

[woobs]

I'll happily answer this woobs, once you answer what fast outboards you have owned over the years?

If I owned 10,000 hockey pucks would I be an NHL player?

Just answer the questions without the theatrics please.

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 to make these estimates?

Please lay this out completely in a logical explanation so even I can understand it.
or does that last 5% mean this was all Bull****e and even you can't buy in to 84mph.
It's either possible...or it's not.

[Ed Donnelly]

Well, yes. Even though I have not owned this particular boat for very long I do know how fast MY Donzi goes.

74.56454306848 mph. This was measured by GPS on November 16, 2013. The conditions of the day were cool and clear with only a light ripple on the water.

To achieve this amazing speed with an early stock hull Ski Sporter and just 175 HP to work with... she was rigged light... and for the purpose of making time and distance with carefully regulated speed. I don't know exactly how much fuel was in the tank but, it seemed like just fumes.

I can't say she had a Super Strangler bolted on the back but, she was really hooked up and the hull was completely "aired out". I can guarantee the hydrodynamic drag was at an absolute minimum during this run, the strakes did not come in to play and the angle of attack was less than 5 degrees.

Despite having recorded this top speed of 74.56454306848 mph; acceleration was good but I could have gone faster. I didn't push it as I was also considering fuel mileage however, I'm pretty sure that no other boat we saw went past us that day.

Here is a pic of the set up... (The only way this boat does 74.56454306848 mph)

.79078


I'm not sure where Sir Ed D got that pad 16 info but he gets a pass on everything given he busted the century mark with his 16. I was hoping by now that the write-up you were going to do about 1967 #452 16 would have been finished Matty. I think you have been working with the owner behind the scenes to put all the information together about how it was rigged and how long he has owned it. Does the owner ever go to his second home in the islands (what island again?) to visit the boat? It must not get much use going 68mph down there which is a shame. There should be an interview with the owner about it to get the details straight and into the archives. :yes:

Got that quote right from this site. Do a search and you will find it

[Ed Donnelly]

-one-of-a-kind-16-baby-outboard
August 16th 2006

It's all there in black and white....Ed

[mattyboy]

here's the link (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?46204-one-of-a-kind-16-baby-outboard&highlight=one+of+a+kind+16+outboard) and so everyone is clear this is in no way shape or form Dr Lou's 16 1965 special Don Aronow built for Bryant's Gerry Walin 16 this is a baby 16 OB built sometime in the 1970s and highly modified pad bracket shifted weight. So Dr lou's chances with no such modification of running in the 80s with 1970s technology is all but gone like DB Cooper gone

[Greg Guimond]

-one-of-a-kind-16-baby-outboard. August 16th 2006. It's all there in black and white....Ed

I wonder where that modified 16 Donzi ended up Ed?



82 MPH and 225HP from an outboard.. and 16' MAN, is that smokin :yes: Best we can get with a 3" SS shortie and 400 horsepower in an I/O is about 78 GPS...Can you supply pics of the pad and transom? Thanx, Lenny

I guess Rootsy's 16 I/O sets the high water mark and not at 78 but actually at 81mph using an outboard gearcase profile instead. That Roots guy knew how to think out of the box.

[Greg Guimond]

here's the link (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?46204-one-of-a-kind-16-baby-outboard&highlight=one+of+a+kind+16+outboard) and so everyone is clear this is in no way shape or form Dr Lou's 16 1965 special Don Aronow built for Bryant's Gerry Walin 16 this is a baby 16 OB built sometime in the 1970s and highly modified pad bracket shifted weight. So Dr lou's chances with no such modification of running in the 80s with 1970s technology is all but gone like DB Cooper gone

Naah .....raised pad's are evidently way over rated and I don't even see a picture of a pad on the 16 you provided the link to. David's Puerto Rico 16 Baby did 77.7mph without any pad whatsoever. 77.7mph with no pad and a big fat gearcase. A different example is Sutphen's new 21 which uses an older round bottom design that also has no raised pad, no rear lifting strakes, and yet it's highly competitive with other full pad bottom 21s.

The "chine walking problems" of the coke bottle bottom on a Donzi 16 is yet another "elders" myth. Once the drive is high enough it disappears. I'm looking forward to your write-up on #452. Should be a really good, well structured read Matty. Hopefully you'll have it ready by next Winter?

EDIT: At some point I'm really hoping that BUIZILLA and mattyboy will post the video that shows that David V's Mercury 225 was highly modified to achieve 77mph. It must be out there somewhere on youtube or the like as they said it was. Once they post it I'll feel a hell of a lot better about my tired 16 being so dang slow. :garfield:

[Greg Guimond]

-one-of-a-kind-16-baby-outboard. August 16th 2006. It's all there in black and white....Ed

And btw Sir 100mph Ed, that mystery 16 OB you posted about is not a one of a kind. There is evidently a second pad bottom 16 Donzi OB running around somewhere in Texas I believe with big wacker power. It has only been sighted once and there are no pics of it running fast.

[Ed Donnelly]

Let's save the 2nd 16 with a pad for next winter as roomer has it that
The 100 m.p.h. Barrier was broke with this O.B. ..Ed

[Greg Guimond]

If I owned 10,000 hockey pucks would I be an NHL player? Just answer the questions without the theatrics please.

No, but it would certainly show that you have real world experience with hockey pucks. :)

I'm not sure why you won't answer what fast OBs you have owned over the years but once you do I'll lay out the 84mph tutorial in short order, yet again. I'm getting the feeling your answer is going to be "none" but hey, I don't know, maybe you run a Tuff 21.

[Greg Guimond]

Let's save the 2nd 16 with a pad for next winter as roomer has it that The 100 m.p.h. Barrier was broke with this O.B. ..Ed

100? That's a ton of hockey pucks! Here is the "2nd" 16 with a pad below. I'm not sure where the first one you mentioned ended up. Only a crazy Canadian (bless Victoriaville) could even remotely think a Donzi 16 could go 100mph. That would take like a 1000 ponies from a guy with a girls name.

[duckhunter]

Nice looking boat.

[Ed Donnelly]

Of course it's a ton of hockey pucks,that's why I said to keep it for
next winter so we will have something to fight oops I mean talk about..Ed

[woobs]

No, but it would certainly show that you have real world experience with hockey pucks. :)
I'm not sure why you won't answer what fast OBs you have owned over the years but once you do I'll lay out the 84mph tutorial in short order, yet again. I'm getting the feeling your answer is going to be "none" but hey, I don't know, maybe you run a Tuff 21.

Oh Greg, where to start.....

Once again, you're wrong. As you have done so many times before you have taken two pieces of information and connected them with an assumption that has no basis of fact (or accuracy) and just as often followed no logic. All the while ignoring all the other possibilities that don't fit your theory. If your M-O follows, you will use these wildly inaccurate assumptions to compare to other, just as inaccurate assumptions and arrive at whatever conclusion you have previously convinced yourself of.

If I owned 10,000 hockey pucks it does NOT lead to reason that I know anything about hockey pucks (real world or other wise). Knowledge is not dependent on ownership... now if I worked in a hockey puck factory, it may be different. schools out....again.

Next... I don't need to give you my resume. The question is also irrelevant to the discussion. You're supposed to be the smart guy. You're the one purporting the claim. The onus is on you to make a case and support it. If I can't understand your posts, I'll ask questions. If you feel insecure about your posts you should make a better argument. Either way, what I have owned or not owned, know or don't know or have (or not have) experience with is none of your business.

Now to the Miracle 84. I called you out around 500 posts ago. You didn't answer (feigning some dribble about winter banter). I have asked you to state your case multiple times so I could understand your thought paths and offer a constructive discussion. Still, not only no answer but, more roadblocks and misdirection. The truth is I really don't care anymore. I don't need your answer. I don't need your thought process, I don't feel I need to contribute to the discussion.

I have identified (and posted) why I believe the Miracle 84 could not happen. Even assuming your "aligned planets" scenarios it is not likely and a reasonable case to even be close has not been made. I believe it did not happen.

I may be wrong, and I'll accept that when/if it is proven to me. But, you can't prove it happened. You can't prove it's possible. Even if it was possible, you do not possess the ability to logically analyse, reason and properly communicate the factors that may contribute to the feat. At least you have not shown this ability in this thread as you continually talk down to people in your condescending "I'm the king of the 16 o/b" attitude fostered (I assume) because you wrongfully believe your ownership of several of the same kind of boat makes you a credible resource or some kind of all knowing 16 o/b authority.

Don't worry, (I know you won't because you said you don't care about people) I'm not too insulted that you require my resume before bestowing your knowledge. After all, I'm sure you ask everyone who makes a post to declare their credentials to be approved by you before you enlighten your wacker kingdom.

Just how many o/b 16s do I have to own to become "16 wacker king"? I could flip 3 or 4 this summer to be ready for the omnipotent role at next winters banter. Or maybe you have another accolade besides ownership? What university did you attend? Do you have an engineering degree? Science? maybe you have been a member of a marine race team? You're a certified marine tech? What structured program have you run with regards to marine performance and what are the published results? Maybe you just stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night. Or, do you really just spend that much time with the search button on your computer?

[dsparis]

Woobs you nailed it.

[Greg Guimond]

Oh Greg, where to start.....

Once again, you're wrong. As you have done so many times before you have taken two pieces of information and connected them with an assumption that has no basis of fact (or accuracy) and just as often followed no logic. All the while ignoring all the other possibilities that don't fit your theory. If your M-O follows, you will use these wildly inaccurate assumptions to compare to other, just as inaccurate assumptions and arrive at whatever conclusion you have previously convinced yourself of.

If I owned 10,000 hockey pucks it does NOT lead to reason that I know anything about hockey pucks (real world or other wise). Knowledge is not dependent on ownership... now if I worked in a hockey puck factory, it may be different. schools out....again.

Next... I don't need to give you my resume. The question is also irrelevant to the discussion. You're supposed to be the smart guy. You're the one purporting the claim. The onus is on you to make a case and support it. If I can't understand your posts, I'll ask questions. If you feel insecure about your posts you should make a better argument. Either way, what I have owned or not owned, know or don't know or have (or not have) experience with is none of your business.

Now to the Miracle 84. I called you out around 500 posts ago. You didn't answer (feigning some dribble about winter banter). I have asked you to state your case multiple times so I could understand your thought paths and offer a constructive discussion. Still, not only no answer but, more roadblocks and misdirection. The truth is I really don't care anymore. I don't need your answer. I don't need your thought process, I don't feel I need to contribute to the discussion.

I have identified (and posted) why I believe the Miracle 84 could not happen. Even assuming your "aligned planets" scenarios it is not likely and a reasonable case to even be close has not been made. I believe it did not happen.

I may be wrong, and I'll accept that when/if it is proven to me. But, you can't prove it happened. You can't prove it's possible. Even if it was possible, you do not possess the ability to logically analyse, reason and properly communicate the factors that may contribute to the feat. At least you have not shown this ability in this thread as you continually talk down to people in your condescending "I'm the king of the 16 o/b" attitude fostered (I assume) because you wrongfully believe your ownership of several of the same kind of boat makes you a credible resource or some kind of all knowing 16 o/b authority.

Don't worry, (I know you won't because you said you don't care about people) I'm not too insulted that you require my resume before bestowing your knowledge. After all, I'm sure you ask everyone who makes a post to declare their credentials to be approved by you before you enlighten your wacker kingdom.

Just how many o/b 16s do I have to own to become "16 wacker king"? I could flip 3 or 4 this summer to be ready for the omnipotent role at next winters banter. Or maybe you have another accolade besides ownership? What university did you attend? Do you have an engineering degree? Science? maybe you have been a member of a marine race team? You're a certified marine tech? What structured program have you run with regards to marine performance and what are the published results? Maybe you just stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night. Or, do you really just spend that much time with the search button on your computer?


:kingme: blah blah blah, a lot of personal affronts instead of a simple one sentence answer yet again. And time spent on the computer? Your the guy who "left" the thread 3 times and yet has the most posts behind me lol.
I do give you credit for the creative structure of your wording though, the shear word count you ultimately totaled rivaled the length of this tough Winter and certainly helped push the total views up which was my goal. I'm done tutoring you though, you can re-read the whole thread at your leisure as you weigh your 16 (<1,000lbs) and figure out what pad design (waste of time) you'll install. It's like asking a kid in school if he had ever read Keats and instead of answering yes or no he starts reciting other poets?

No hard feelings and good luck with the resto. This is my last post on this thread until January 1, 2015. If someone asks me about Greavettes, I'm telling them to call you because I know very little about them. I add no real value so go to someone who has practical experience I'll tell them, you'll probably learn something new from a dude who has been there, done that.

C ya next Winter, time to head to the ramp. Spring really started today, finally! The sun is shining bright, won't be long before it's ...... 84 :bighug:

[woobs]

:kingme: blah blah blah,
This just about sums up the value of your contribution to this, your own thread.

It never would have even occurred to me to do a post count or word count tallied by person... The fact you look at that says a lot.

The purpose here is dialogue. To explore, and possibly answer questions (if not help others answer questions). Who cares how many posts it takes as long as it moves forward. I'm guilty of being just gullible enough to have taken your bait (several times) and been sucked into your nonsensical fantasy-physics and Voo-Doo analysis. I see now that by your own admission that neither quality discussion nor answers were your goal and you have not participated on any of these discussions in good faith. With all the ducking and avoiding of questions....and "I'll answer that, IF you tell me (or agree to) this".... Who'd a guessed that of you? Quite frankly, I'm disappointed . I held you in higher esteem than that.

You "tutored" me? :shocking: Well, at least you still have a sense of humour.

Just as an after thought ... How many Super Stranglers have you owned? I suppose by your yardstick you should be sending in your resume before posting on that subject again.

Have fun boatin'.

[woobs]

Hmmmmm.

I'm not concerned with a healthy discussion, never have been.

[BUIZILLA]

somewherrrre, over the rainbow...

[maxser427]

I see earlier in this thread someone posted a Aussie 16 O/B does anyone have any more info on the Australian boats ?

[Greg Guimond]

Dr. Lou ............. Dr. Lou :lightning

[RPD]

I still have mine, vintage 1976. A friend just bought the only other one I know of in town, 1971 I think.

[Greg Guimond]

I still have mine, vintage 1976. A friend just bought the only other one I know of in town, 1971 I think.

And if I recall you have had your 16 OB for many years :yes:

[RPD]

And if I recall you have had your 16 OB for many years :yes:



28 years, I think, maybe 27, but could be 29. I think I have early signs of CRS!

[nsp]

Hello All, earlier today I picked up a 1971 Ob, it has a 2002 125hp Mercury. Prior owner installed a new fuel tank (but decommissioned and left the old one in floor) in the bow. I hope to get it in the water soon for a ride.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Looks like it's in great shape . Maybe even garage kept ? Very nice .

[nsp]

Thanks Morgan’s Cloud, yeah, not bad, the seller had the stripe and topside painted recently. Looking forward to running it!

[axelkloehn]

Thanks Morgan’s Cloud, yeah, not bad, the seller had the stripe and topside painted recently. Looking forward to running it!

Very cool boat, how comes the steering wheel is a the right side? How many 16s are sold with RH drive or is it done on customers request? Does anybody know?

[Morgan's Cloud]

In the case of the OB 16s outboards (at least back then) were all clockwise rotation props , hence the driver's station on the stbd side.

[axelkloehn]

In the case of the OB 16s outboards (at least back then) were all clockwise rotation props , hence the driver's station on the stbd side.

That makes sense, thanks!

[mattyboy]

In the case of the OB 16s outboards (at least back then) were all clockwise rotation props , hence the driver's station on the stbd side.


not all the first one was LH hull 452 1967 well before the Baby outboard production run but yes due to the egg beater rotation the helm and lounge seat was moved so it was another deck mold

[Morgan's Cloud]

oops , mine was sort of a broad sweep generic kind of answer (from a sort of generic kind of person)
In retrospect I think I have seen that photo somewhere around here of the L/H drive OB baby .

[mattyboy]

oops , mine was sort of a broad sweep generic kind of answer (from a sort of generic kind of person)
In retrospect I think I have seen that photo somewhere around here of the L/H drive OB baby .

:) yes it's down by you but you are correct once they went into true production they were all righties

[nsp]

I’d like to contribute the hull number, but am having trouble locating it, i looked behind the cushions of the rear seat, at around the battery and also under the dash. Any other ideas? It’s titled as a 1971 and was give a NJ HIN.




Thanks Morgan’s Cloud, yeah, not bad, the seller had the stripe and topside painted recently. Looking forward to running it!

[mattyboy]

can you look up by the bow eye backing plate

[nsp]

I didn’t realize there was one there, thank you for the tip, I’ll check it out.


can you look up by the bow eye backing plate

[nsp]

I couldn’t see any markings of a hull number. Any other places it could be?



I didn’t realize there was one there, thank you for the tip, I’ll check it out.

[nsp]

Btw - Is there a list by year of hull numbers? Mine is a 1971. Also, does this year have a max hp rating?
Thank you!


I couldn’t see any markings of a hull number. Any other places it could be?

[mattyboy]

there were 24 hulls invoiced in 71 hulls 14 to 38 let me guess your boat is white with blue stripes? in 71 the list price was 2495 unrigged haven't found and HP specs yet in all my stuff 135 seems to stick out in my mind

[nsp]

Mattyboy, thank you for your response. I’m hoping being this was before the coast guard required max capacities there is not a max hp.


QUOTE=mattyboy;670510]there were 24 hulls invoiced in 71 hulls 14 to 38 let me guess your boat is white with blue stripes? in 71 the list price was 2495 unrigged haven't found and HP specs yet in all my stuff 135 seems to stick out in my mind[/QUOTE]

[nsp]

Oh and yes, white with blue stripe!


Mattyboy, thank you for your response. I’m hoping being this was before the coast guard required max capacities there is not a max hp.


QUOTE=mattyboy;670510]there were 24 hulls invoiced in 71 hulls 14 to 38 let me guess your boat is white with blue stripes? in 71 the list price was 2495 unrigged haven't found and HP specs yet in all my stuff 135 seems to stick out in my mind[/QUOTE]

[mattyboy]

most of the OB baby were that color if you can get to the top of the gas tank you may find a date on the tank that will give you a general idea of the era of boat