Definition of "safely"

[Ghost]

It was recently commented that a member's boat, running a bit north of 100 mph, was "more proof" that our classic hulls "can be run safely at these speeds." This comment didn't sit well with me and strikes me as worth further contemplation.

Caveats: Two thoughts come to mind, but before they do, a couple of caveats. Please, let no one misinterpret my comments as claiming anyone's boat is "unsafe" or that anyone here is being reckless, or the like. I'm saying nothing of the sort. Further, the particular boat in question that inspired the comment above is, in my view, freakin' awesome. I dig it. Looks like a great job. I have ZERO complaints about it, quite the reverse. I'm very much a fan.

But with that, on to the point. Consider the notion that the existence of any 100+ mph boat (and any information we've gotten or COULD get about it) is "more proof" that our classic hulls can be "run safely at these speeds." Leaping into my head are two things:

a quote from Steven Wright "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." (On the subject of "proof" and how silly it is in this context.)
a quote from Yahoo Answers where some idiot had asked "Is it dangerous to drink while taking [some drug, maybe Vicodin]." Whatever it was, the drug is always ABSOLUTELY PLASTERED with warnings about not taking it while drinking any amount of alcohol, not even a drop. And the asker acknowledged this. Someone, God bless him, just responded to the bonehead with "what is 'danger' anyway?" Freaking hilarious, as well as genius. Because that really IS the point, after all. There is no "safe" in a Donzi Classic at near triple-digit speeds. It's only a matter of how risky it is. Safe is right out. There are FATAL risks in any Donzi Classic up near 100 mph. It just becomes a matter of making good choices to minimize those risks--they never go away and the unqualified label "safely" is absurdly meaningless in the discussion. Any meaningful discussion will be drilling into the many choices and corresponding risks in an attempt to qualify them.


What's the old saying? "The wise don't need it and the fool won't heed it."

[joseph m. hahnl]

There isn't anything safe about it .If it were, it wouldn't be that impressive. :biggrin.:

Safety is also subjective to the conditions. Some call speed reckless others call it thrilling. never is it called safe :wink:The way I took what he said is the boat can operate safely at that speed ,Not necessarily it is safe to operate at that speed .:rolleyes:

[Ghost]

Agreed, and that's kinda what I was getting at. The real answer is not 'safely' or 'unsafely', it's a serious and somewhat complicated discussion of choices and risks and attempts to qualify/quantify them. Baking in gear, experience, conditions, etc. And a great deal of subjective, as well as objective, probability. The short label can't have much (if any) meaning.

[gcarter]

I agree, it's not safe. While the boat in question handles better at speed than probably any other 22C (but what would I know about that?), "safely" is a entirely subjective term.
Deep Vee hulls were developed in the '50's to go 65 MPH, and it took until the mid '70's before any consistently went 85 MPH. So you can put 750 HP in a Vee hull and go 100 MPH consistently, it's certainly not the easiest way, or cheapest way to do it.
I'm a little older than many here, I'll admit my desire to live a few more years probably influences my opinion.

[Ghost]

Agreed, and I should clarify something too, I think. The problem I have is with putting a simplistic label on something inherently complex (not to mention subjective). "Can be run safely" is falsely treating a spectrum like a dichotomy (safely vs. unsafely), and exacerbating that mistake with blindness to subjective notions of both probability (what the risk/consequence numbers are) and also with danger (what people are comfortable with). It's a useless, if not deceptive, generalization.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Ghost , as the youngsters nowadays say , 'I'll give you *props* for having the courage to bring this up'.
So far I agree with the wisdom and tact that everyone has responded with , including your original post.

Like all the classics, and most every V bottomed boat that Don had a finger in designing , they are destined to become absolute classics that will stand the test of time and still be held as beautiful in 100 years as they are now .
BUT , they have their limits. These boats were not designed to run 'safely' over , say , 65 mph. Sure , put 1000hp in anything and it will 'go fast' , but it's safety depends entirely on the conditions that day and the skill of the driver to keep it on the water (most likely in a straight line only) .

A few years ago I went for a ride in a Skater 24 that the owner was running in two new 300 Mercs. We went up to 93mph and I did not feel safe. Why ? Not because the hull wasn't designed for it but because I questioned the ability and experience of the driver. He was a surgeon , so if anything untowards happened at least he'd be able to patch me back up if need be :D

As ridiculous as it may sound I'm still adjusting to the new performance of my St T and anything over 50 to me now feels unsafe. I definitely would not give it to anyone to drive unless they had many decades of experience in a wide variety of boats under their belt.

As for going 100+ in a C22 . No way in hell ! I know the incremental differences one feels in a boat between 30 and 45 mph. Then 50 to 60 mph , etc.
The fastest I'd probably really want to go in a C22 is upper 60's , if that. Things happen very quickly and can go wrong equally fast at those speeds and the larger the boat the greater mass is going to take longer to slow down to a manoeuvrable speed.

The other issue that comes to mind is that very few people run their boats as waterborne missiles all the time. A boat that wasn't originally designed (or built) to run at these incredible speeds probably completely looses it's ability to cruise in a civilized manner at 'normal speeds' and does all sorts of things that only encourage the driver to get it out of that zone.

All that aside , fysis has done an amazing job and has gonads a lot larger than mine !

[Carl C]

Mike, why don't you just tell Bjorn directly that what he is doing is not "safe". Or better yet take this entire hypocritical argument to .org where this is what you had to say in response to Bjorn's running over 100 mph in his 22 Donzi Classic: "Love it!! Awesome, great work!! -Mike". I happen to think that what he is doing is pretty darn cool. :toiletpap

[Ghost]

Thanks Steve. ("props", LOL--classic! ;) ).

Probably worth bringing up that I don't say it's 'unsafe' either to run a 22C up at these speeds. Only that it has risks, and that the consequences can be serious to fatal for lots of things that go wrong at 100mph. One can work to drive the likelihood of such things down as much as possible, but the bottom line is that at that speed, if something goes wrong it can be a real problem. A bird-strike might be able to kill you at 100.

My focus remains on trying to characterize risk accurately rather than put a misleading, confusing, nonsense label on something that requires more complex description. Saying something like "it's safer (or more dangerous) than flying on a commercial jet" starts to illustrate this pretty well. First reaction might be "measured HOW?" Once you reach that question, the complexity of the answer, and the silliness of the label "safely" start becoming that much more apparent.

[Ghost]

Mike, why don't you just tell Bjorn directly that what he is doing is not "safe". Or better yet take this entire hypocritical argument to .org where this is what you had to say in response to Bjorn's running over 100 mph in his 22 Donzi Classic: "Love it!! Awesome, great work!! -Mike". I happen to think that what he is doing is pretty darn cool. :toiletpap

Answer: I won't tell him directly that what he's doing is not safe because I'm NOT and never have been saying what he's doing is not "safe." I already said that very clearly, right up front in this thread. Further, I love what he's doing. Note that I also said that I was a fan, right in this thread, right up front. You might want to re-read my first post if you missed it--I addressed this in the "Caveats" paragraph. You'll find there's nothing hypocritical here at all, you've just misinterpreted what I'm saying.

This is about the reality that there are things in the world more complex than binary choices and the simplistic labels to go with them.

My point was that labeling what he (and lots of us) do either "safe" or "unsafe" is largely nonsense. It's so hopelessly undefined as to be meaningless. Define 'safely.' In this context, lots of people with large amounts of experience might make all the same decisions about gear and conditions and driving technique and one would say he felt safe and another would say he felt unsafe. They might even do so based on having the same probability estimates and consequences mapped out. (Given the exact same numbers, one person might say it is safe to drink unpasteurized milk and another would say the opposite. The term means nothing without qualification and in this case, LOTS of it.)

As for the part about 'proof' in the initial comment I criticized, please revisit the joke about "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Where's the 'proof' in showing a boat can go 100 'safely?' How many hours does it take? Would you watch a fatal accident in a car race and say "that was safe, right up to the point where he got killed?"

If one understands my point about the uselessness of the terms 'safely' and 'unsafely,' it becomes clear that I am NOT criticizing Bjorn or Mr. X or any of a number of people with fast boats. And even more so, I'm certainly not saying they are 'unsafe.' I'm saying the terms are stupid and meaningless. The only descriptions that make any sense are complex and delve into the details. It'd be a bit silly to say 'unsafe' doesn't mean anything and then call someone 'unsafe.'

Probability is misunderstood widely--perhaps that is the source of confusion here. Again, if you play the game "is it safer to operate a 100 MPH Classic than to fly on a commercial airliner?" I think you will be able to follow my point. You can't answer that without clarifying a lot of assumptions and definitions. Assumptions and definitions that people won't agree upon until they are clarified. Hence, "safely" here is a meaningless term, used on its own.

EDIT: Not to confuse the issue, but one actually COULD usefully say SOME things were "unsafe," like doing 100 through a packed regatta on a small lake. Most people could usefully agree on the meaning of the term in that sort of context. My point is more to do with the nonsense of labeling certain things as "safe." In this context, I think calling any of the folks we know who approach triple-digit-speeds either "safe" or "unsafe" is meaningless. Best one could say is that people are doing something inherently somewhat risky in a way to diminish certain risks. Or not to, if one thinks they do not.

Last, if you are concerned about my comment being in some way personal toward Bjorn, you couldn't be further from the truth. Pardon the candor, but for clarity:

my comments about the 100mph project in question were all positive and all sincere
my only criticism was not about his project at all--my criticism was about your meaningless and/or misleading comment about his project
the comment in which you claimed that said project was further proof of something that is not only hopelessly undefined and not only is not proved, it is not even provable.

Again, apologies if that comes off as being too pointed, just trying to be clear since you didn't understand this distinction on the first go-round. It's no big deal, we all say such things at times when we don't think things through. See if you don't come to the same conclusion, if you consider the "airline safety comparison" example.

[Greg Guimond]

Everyone takes measured risks in life and interprets "safely" in context. As long as you have as much of a "oh ****" net as possible then go for it. Risk is relative to a persons tolerance for risk. One person thinks mounting a Citi Bike in NYC is risky. Some think my son is taking a risk on his skateboard doing the Broadway bomb where 100's of skateboarders take over Broadway from cars running from 116th street to the bull on Wall Street. Others think my pops took a risk riding his motorcycle from CT to Alaska and back solo for his 70th birthday.

I say live life ..........

[mike o]

Mike, airline safety is a finite % statistic based on probability from a know # of "safe" flights.
There has only been a hand full of classic's that have gone where no one has gone before. We have a few active members who have, or are, pushing the envelope. A few that I can think of (off hand) took the boat apart, or sold it, like Rootsy, Geoo. Both for their own reasons, I assume. Ed Donnelly's in the 100 club with a 16, and Steve 18 is off the charts fast, as it Todds. They can speak for themselves, and probably have interesting comments.:). How many of us get in our daily driver auto's and find it absolute top speed. :wink: How "safe" would that be? We all have plenty of auto seat time......:crossfing: I always wondered how many 100 mph runs Ed did in his 16...:smile:

[Ghost]

Mike, airline safety is a finite % statistic based on probability from a know # of "safe" flights.
There has only been a hand full of classic's that have gone where no one has gone before. We have a few active members who have, or are, pushing the envelope. A few that I can think of (off hand) took the boat apart, or sold it, like Rootsy, Geoo. Both for their own reasons, I assume. Ed Donnelly's in the 100 club with a 16, and Steve 18 is off the charts fast, as it Todds. They can speak for themselves, and probably have interesting comments.:). How many of us get in our daily driver auto's and find it absolute top speed. :wink: How "safe" would that be? We all have plenty of auto seat time......:crossfing: I always wondered how many 100 mph runs Ed did in his 16...:smile:

Yes, excellent points that speak to what I'm getting at. And consider flights further...does one measure risk by percentage of flights with an accident, fatalities per hour of travel time, fatalities per passenger mile traveled? Then substitute injuries for fatalities and build those into risk. A car wreck might be more likely but the expected harm would be much less i'd think.

Circling back, with someone who owns a near-triple-digit classic? How much time does he spend at speed?

Further, not only is our data set of time in such boats small, it's even smaller for any given boat. (As you outlined well.). That's part of why the term 'proves' seems so silly in the comment in question, as well as the unqualified term 'safely.'

Instead of saying the boats can be run 'safely,' I would instead say that I know some folks with very fast boats, who go to great lengths to make running them as safe as possible.

[joseph m. hahnl]

Let's use it in a sentence. He took all of the necessary safety precautions to safely run his classic 22 at speed :tooth: It's funny that one I watched the Video again you could see he was wearing a helmet in the reflection of the gauge :p . There for there is no doubt he is safely operating as safely as one could possibly, safely operate, a v boat safely over 100 mph:wink:

[Ghost]

Let's use it in a sentence. He took all of the necessary safety precautions to safely run his classic 22 at speed :tooth: It's funny that one I watched the Video again you could see he was wearing a helmet in the reflection of the gauge :p . There for there is no doubt he is safely operating as safely as one could possibly, safely operate, a v boat safely over 100 mph:wink:

Lol.

[Conquistador_del_mar]

Very interesting discussion here. Having come from a young guy who was known by many as "Wildman" to my present age of 60 has brought a different perspective on safety and risk. I admire anyone who knowledgeably designs and drives a fast and powerful machine like I would have done in my younger years. Maybe a lot of this discussion relates to risk aversion as we get older? Possibly a little of the mentoring us older guys want to pass along?
I will say that I am sometimes concerned when someone just wants to go fast without seeming to pay enough attention to limiting the risks. Most of you guys here seem to have a good handle on safety. I personally would not want to drive or ride in a boat that exceeds what I deem as "safe and prudent", but then I think my risk aversion is directly proportional to my age - lol. Ride on!

[Ed Donnelly]

I was young and foolish when I built the 16 up,and in my 30's.
The water conditions had to be perfect and no boats within a mile.
You could not drive in a straight line as the chine walk over 80 made it uncontrollable.
Always a slight left turn at speed. That was a big reason why I put the pad and step in.
Even then it still needed the slight left turn.
I drove it over 80 hundreds of times but over 100 a handfull.
When I sold it I had already pulled the engine and drive as I WOULD NOT SELL IT
with that engine didn't need the worries of someone getting hurt or killed in it.
(I sold my E type Jag with a D type full race engine in it and the kid who bought it lost control and killed himself in it 2 months later)

I was in my 50's when I put the Gale Banks twin turbo in the Criterion.
No external steering or K-Planes. Over 80 it was very twitchy. Took it over 100 less
than a dozen times. It just scared the hell out of me. Pulled the Gale Banks out THEN
installed the K-Planes and dual hydraulic steering, and installed the supercharged much lower horsepower engine in. When I hit 60 yrs old I lost interest in going fast in boats.

Prefer 4 wheels on my go fast toys now...Finished ranting....Ed

[Just Say N20]

All this, and we are just starting FALL?!?!? :propeller:

Could be a LLLLLLLLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGG non-boating season. . . .:doh:

[Greg Guimond]

I was young and foolish when I built the 16 up and in my 30's. The water conditions had to be perfect and no boats within a mile. You could not drive in a straight line as the chine walk over 80 made it uncontrollable. Always a slight left turn at speed. That was a big reason why I put the pad and step in. Even then it still needed the slight left turn. ....Ed

Interesting Ed that your 16 had a slight side pull both before and after you installed the pad bottom.

[Pismo]

Its awesome and he wants to do it so who is anyone to say if it is safe or not. It is up to him.

[mike o]

It's funny, I dont worry about my front tire on the Buell @ 80, ever. But over 110 the thought creeps into my head .:wrench: Same on the sled, @ 80 in the woods, trees whizzing by, it's nothing all day. But, over 100 its the deer jumping up of the woods or a bolt holding a ski on, maybe made in China...... :kingme:

Both machines box stock are designed for it, as is Mike's airplane scenario. I launched my 18 in some slop @ LG a couple of yr's ago @70 having fun with a Baja outlaw. I put a little biker skull decal over the key to remind me of that Chit :lightning. Most really fast classic's are work in progress, moving up the speeds on timely, incremental, modifications. It was interesting to read that Steve's 18 with 600 hp drives through the dance @ 70, where my hull gets spooky. The intense mental rush of "wondering" what's next in the moment, @ what ever speed on -in anything fast, is why folks go there. The Holy F........:wink: Is it safe, nope. Can it be done safely, maybe to some degree. Is it Risky, Oh Ya :yes:, Tis fun.......... :cool: I never want to read of anybody getting hurt. Be "safe" :kingme: , out there, people.......:checkered:

[pipnit]

How many people here have their boat properly insured?

[mattyboy]

If God wanted man to fly he would have given wings, if he wanted him to swim he would have given web hands and feet.

my point

outside of your normal natural environment is a risky deal no matter what you are doing rock climbing, hanging iron 100 stories in the air, driving anything that goes above 1 mph.

There are certain risks we take everyday from getting in the car for the morning commute to enjoying that bacon egg and cheese on an everything bagel with a large lite and sweet coffee while talking on the cell on that commute. How soon we forget Mr Schoonmaker's lectures in drivers Ed 10 and 2 , safe following distances expect the unexpected.

so it goes for our hobby, powerboating the act of going fast on water is an unnatural act. Everything requires more attention to detail from fueling to maint, to running the boat at speed. can a 40+ year old design be made to run fast yes can it be done like getting into the car for that morning commute NO. For the most part the people I have been with and seen that push that outer limit of the envelope take that very seriously and have taken the time and effort and well as the precautions to minimize the risks. The biggest risk is complacency . We as a group always talk about these boats being drivers boats and that they will eventually give you that " holy **** it never did that before" and scare the crap out of you . When we think they are routine that's when we get into trouble.

To be honest It has happened to me looking back when Marie and I would go out on the 16 we would never run at 40 or 45 without vests on . now with the hornet running 40 or 45 and the more secure feeling of being higher off the water and more in the boat than on the boat the vest are at our feet. Think we'll have our inflatables on from now on.

Safe is an illusion

[gcarter]

Talking about comparing aggressive boating to commercial flying is really a non starter.
Fifteen years ago, you could fly everyday for 21,000 years and not be in an accident. It has become safer since then.
In fact it's probably safer to fly than stay at home.
Maybe a comparison to other activities.........like walking down particular streets after dark! That activity "could" go w/o incident, or it might not!

[olredalert]

----Most of the people that I know and admire for entering this upper zone of speed are very analytical, not only about the top speed but the precautions that let them do it more than once. For instance, I have watched Todd in his 22 and over the years as his speed has creeped upward and he has spent as much thought on taking out gremlins as he has adding horsies! I only saw Geoo run one weekend, but was impressed that he wouldnt run the big numbers unless he felt his boat and conditions were just right. It probably comes down to simply not being foolhardy. My speedy days are over, the same as Eds. Now I appreciate the cruise as much if not more than I ever did the speed. With that said, I do love to see guys posting these big numbers and taking the precautions that let them come back to the dock every time. Not all the members here are as prudent as they should be and Im sometimes surprised (happily) that we dont hear a few more horror stories........Bill S

[gcarter]

Of course personal perception plays a huge part in this discussion. For instance Jimmy Johnson runs his Chevy race car looser than anyone else in NASCAR. Apparently he likes it like that and he has the reaction time to benefit from the faster response times of the car setup. Modern fighter jets are dynamically unstable and depend on computers to maintain straight and level flight. What the instability contributes is they will rotate at over 100* per second!
Obviously, it takes special people to accomplish these things. I also think personal abilities play a huge part in choices to push the envelope. Like the guy in the Florida panhandle that wake jumped himself to death at 85 MPH or so, folks need to be realistic about their own abilities to accomplish things. If I wanted to go 100 MPH in a 22C, I think I would become Tres Martins best customer! At least he could teach you what to expect and what to do, and if your couldn't cut it, he could discourage you from trying.
Back to my commercial flying statistic above, in spite of the reality of flying safety, there are lots of folks who won't fly.
I'd rather fly than drive there, but I have no desire to go much more than 70 MPH in a boat.

[Ed Donnelly]

I would like to add one more statement
Most if not all of the high speed Donzis were done over a period of several months if not years. My 16 was a 10 year project, and the Criterion was 3..Ed

[MOP]

No matter how much seat time there can be a bump in the road as Ken (Minx Guy) found out a few years back, beautiful day great water conditions then an unnoticed bump came along. He landed in the water was knocked unconscious, thankfully he made out Ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just think about how many times you have encountered a sneaky wake, add that to the higher speeds you are thinking about, are you and any possible passengers sharp enough to survive????

[Carl C]

I cannot believe that this thread still has life. All over my decision to use the word safe in a sentence. This will be my final post in this thread because I have tried to debate things with Mike in the past and he will just dismiss any arguments with lists of counter arguments until you throw your hands up and say "no mas". Is there one single person here who is not aware of the fact that high performance boating has inherent risks? Just as other motorsports such as off road biking and quading and snowmobiling? I will defend my use of the word in context in the fact that Bjorn did indeed post a video of a SAFE run up to 100.7 mph (and he got there fast!) and back and that said video indicated no ill handling manners. My sentence also said "with an experienced driver and proper set-up". Conditions which appear to have been met. All of this over lack of a better word. Carry on, Mike. I am done with this silly and useless thread. I run low to mid 80s and my boat is dialed in. It is amazing what it can do even in 3-4 foot slop. It takes 6-8 footers to slow me down to idle speed. Does that mean that it is "safe". I don't know but I do know that I have deemed the risk to be reasonable and that the fun factor exceeds the risk factor. Bjorn, carry on. I believe that you can exceed Ted's run with a bit of tweaking and in right conditions.

[Ghost]

I cannot believe that this thread still has life. All over my decision to use the word safe in a sentence.

LOL. (As I picture Gavrilo Princip standing in the moonscape of 1919 France, saying "you guys did all this for ME?!")


I will defend my use of the word in context in the fact that Bjorn did indeed post a video of a SAFE run up to 100.7 mph (and he got there fast!) and back and that said video indicated no ill handling manners.

LOL, you're on a roll. One could likewise deem Russian Roulette "safe" after watching a video where someone pulled the trigger once and only heard a click instead of having his head blown off. Picturing the OSHA trainee looking on and saying "yeah, I guess we're good" as he marks on his clipboard.

What the video proves is merely that what is seen in the video took place. Your extrapolation to proof of something being "safe" is absurd. But that's nothing new in this world--probability and statistics are widely misunderstood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

And again, this is not to say anyone is acting in an "unsafe" manner, or being reckless, or anything of the sort. (It would be silly, given how I am arguing the functional meaningless of either term in this context.) I think this (and other) projects great. And VERY cool.

My point has nothing to do with the project. Rather, it is that the unqualified label "safe" makes no sense. Triple-digit speed in a Donzi Classic is very cool. And fun, for those who consider its very real and omnipresent fatal risks of such speeds to be acceptable to themselves. But saying such speeds can be "run safely" in these boats is ridiculous. And saying a small sample "proves" anything is absurd on its face.

[Morgan's Cloud]

From my POV Carl the mistake you made was NOT defining your 'safe' statement from the get go. As I said earlier anyone can strap massive HP to anything that wasn't designed for it and still make it go fast . But will it go fast safely ?

Let's face it , America is the land of the litigation conscious and there's a lot of people out there who know SFA about a boat , hell , a lot of them can barely operate a car safely , ride a motor bike or even row a dinghy but they have the where with all to buy whatever they want. And the cash to make it faster.

We all know the stories about guys who one day stumble across a Donzi , get stars in their eyes and all caught up in the 'mystique' and then must have one.
When they read unqualified statements like ' proof that these boats can be safely driven at 100+mph speeds' it's a recipe for disaster.

That's all I'm saying. Concern for the uninitiated.

[gcarter]

+1 Mike!

[Carl C]

From my POV Carl the mistake you made was NOT defining your 'safe' statement from the get go. As I said earlier anyone can strap massive HP to anything that wasn't designed for it and still make it go fast . But will it go fast safely ?

Let's face it , America is the land of the litigation conscious and there's a lot of people out there who know SFA about a boat , hell , a lot of them can barely operate a car safely , ride a motor bike or even row a dinghy but they have the where with all to buy whatever they want. And the cash to make it faster.

We all know the stories about guys who one day stumble across a Donzi , get stars in their eyes and all caught up in the 'mystique' and then must have one.
When they read unqualified statements like ' proof that these boats can be safely driven at 100+mph speeds' it's a recipe for disaster.
That's all I'm saying. Concern for the uninitiated.

Umm, "with an experienced driver and proper set-up"........ I don't let anyone else drive my boat. Will someone who knows how to drive a Donzi please come over and pull me skiing with my boat :) .

And again Mike willy nilly dismisses everything I say and comes back with a list of silly arguments over a word.

George, I know that you are content to go slower and at 59 years old it may not be long for me either. For now I will enjoy it while I can. Then maybe move into a nice formula with a real cabin that can still do 60 mph.

All of this over a word....Was there a better word to use? Never-mind.... rhetorical question.... :banghead: :propeller: :doh:

[Team Jefe]

Guys, you're missing a big point here.... of course it's safe.....He's Swedish:biggrin:

[joseph m. hahnl]

All of this over a word....Was there a better word to use? Never-mind.... rhetorical question.... :banghead: :propeller: :doh:

You can Safely say that :rofl:

[Carl C]

You can Safely say that :rofl:

Well wait a minute now. What if I say that while I'm eating my tater tots? I might choke and die so can I really "safely" say that. I think we need to discuss this further.:yes::pimp:

[Pismo]

The nanny state of America is coming through in droves in this thread. pathetic.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Umm, "with an experienced driver and proper set-up"........ I don't let anyone else drive my boat. Will someone who knows how to drive a Donzi please come over and pull me skiing with my boat :) .

And again Mike willy nilly dismisses everything I say and comes back with a list of silly arguments over a word.

George, I know that you are content to go slower and at 59 years old it may not be long for me either. For now I will enjoy it while I can. Then maybe move into a nice formula with a real cabin that can still do 60 mph.

All of this over a word....Was there a better word to use? Never-mind.... rhetorical question.... :banghead: :propeller: :doh:

Sorry , right you are . You DID have a form of qualifier and I overlooked it ! Still , I believe that it might have been more appropriate to say that it's proof that these hulls can be driven at high speeds .. etc without using the word 'safe'

My apologies for any misunderstanding .

[Ghost]

LOL. "They're boxy but they're good."

[biggiefl]

77643Back in 2000 my friend of many moons had a custom made Progression 27 rigged with twin 300 Merc blenders on back. This boat actually set a speed record at the time for a v hull doing like 103.5 both ways which obviously has been broken since. He had a 22 Baja that did maybe 65 on a good day before. I am not sure the details but on a poker run he misjudged something and either a passenger broke a leg or almost did(hell it was 13+ years ago) so he decided to take a race boat driving course that cost many thousands of dollars. The first time I went in this boat was after his lessons and lets just say I was amazed. Mainly because I taught him how to drive a boat when he was 13 or so. He in turn taught me a few tricks that I still find useful in the Donzi at even cruise speeds. He turned over the wheel to me and kneeled next to me with his hand on the lanyard and coached me about the boat. Now this thing has foot throttles(not 1 but 2) engine trim is with left hand or foot, jack plate is with right hand and you have to steer as well. I got her up to about 73 and pulled off, I knew my limitations even in a professionally rigged and much more stable boat than I have ever driven. He however I think got us up to high 90's. I am not sure if I was scared or just all out in amazement. Even with goggles on you have a hard time seeing anything and **** comes up on you SOOOOO fast that you really need to be looking 1/2 mile in front of you while also scanning your surroundings. Is sit a rush...absolutely. Would I want my Donzi to obtain those speeds....no way in hell. If or when I ever repower I want 75 as my high water mark and will be happy with anything 70+ mainly for bragging rights and for a faster cruise.

My point is people can do this. It is their God given right. These "people" should know EXACTLY what the hell they are doing as I don't give a hoot if they kill themselves but don't kill me or anyone else on the water. Is it safe....no way. Anyone who says it is has either never been there or is full of it. Race boat drivers and pleasure drivers die all the time. Heck 60 is not safe for 90% of the idiots on the water yet you can buy a $20k Stingray that will hit 59mph with a 6cyl and no license required.