PDA

View Full Version : critter on craigslist



seano
06-11-2014, 12:29 PM
https://buffalo.craigslist.org/boa/4514604988.html

Conquistador_del_mar
06-11-2014, 02:09 PM
Sweet! TRS drive?

ted z
06-13-2014, 07:11 AM
OK, I have a '95 18 with a mpi motor in it and hear a lot about a SS/TRS drive.Somebody want to school me on this?

Greg Guimond
06-13-2014, 08:51 AM
Was the TRS drive considered a stronger optional race upgrade?

That Critter looks to be a home run for someone although I prefer the model with the hidden front rumble seat. $15,000 seems to be very reasonable for a mint example. Should be gone in days if it ever stops raining.

Greg Guimond
06-13-2014, 08:56 AM
'
The ad for the archives................... $15,000

bertsboat
06-13-2014, 10:13 PM
it sold last night. Guy was 83 years old. Boat was mint I was told.
someone got a good deal there.

Conquistador_del_mar
06-13-2014, 11:49 PM
it sold last night. Guy was 83 years old. Boat was mint I was told.
someone got a good deal there.

Agreed - that was a real deal for the buyer!

gcarter
06-14-2014, 07:45 AM
I know little about TRS drives. They are stronger, larger, heavier, and TRS uppers (or something very similar) are the basis for many of the Merc numbered drives.....and, of course, they have a transmission.

Greg Guimond
06-14-2014, 08:58 AM
I know little about TRS drives. They are stronger, larger, heavier, and TRS uppers (or something very similar) are the basis for many of the Merc numbered drives.....and, of course, they have a transmission.

Interesting George that the TRS bloodline leads to things like the Merc #6. Also from the picture of the Critter (someone got a smoking deal) it looks like the gear case on the TRS has the pointy hydrodynamic cone possibly with low water inlets.

Conquistador_del_mar
06-14-2014, 02:09 PM
Here are the TRS drives off my 36' Cigarette after installing the Hydromotive nose cones. I think Bob's Machine made some that are a little more pointed looking. I'm just not sure what drive the Criterion had on it, but it sure looks to be a TRS - maybe the new owner will post here.

gcarter
06-14-2014, 08:02 PM
Interesting George that the TRS bloodline leads to things like the Merc #6. Also from the picture of the Critter (someone got a smoking deal) it looks like the gear case on the TRS has the pointy hydrodynamic cone possibly with low water inlets.

Greg, the TRS is a VERY simple device. Not only does it use a separate transmission, but no water flows through it and it uses a transom pickup.
No water probably means it should have a shower for cooling.

Greg Guimond
06-14-2014, 11:19 PM
Greg, the TRS is a VERY simple device. Not only does it use a separate transmission, but no water flows through it and it uses a transom pickup.
No water probably means it should have a shower for cooling.

Very interesting. So if you had a TRS drive you had to have a transom, or an "in hull" water pickup? A transom pickup seems to somewhat defeat the purpose of having a nose coned gear case. Then again, I have to put into perspective the years we are talking about in general.

Greg Guimond
06-14-2014, 11:26 PM
Here are the TRS drives off my 36' Cigarette after installing the Hydromotive nose cones. I think Bob's Machine made some that are a little more pointed looking. I'm just not sure what drive the Criterion had on it, but it sure looks to be a TRS - maybe the new owner will post here.

Today I tracked down a 1989 Team Warlock 23 Offshore with a TRS drive. I have NEVER seen a 23 with a TRS. The owner says that the drive was 100% installed by the factory in 1989. Original spec order. Very interesting (to just me) considering that the Alpha faded out in 1987 with the Bravo taking front place in 1988.

Why would Stolarz have installed a TRS drive (with tranny) on a 1989 23 Offshore build? Cliff Clavin ..... better get on the case :eek:

gcarter
06-15-2014, 07:59 AM
Very interesting. So if you had a TRS drive you had to have a transom, or an "in hull" water pickup? A transom pickup seems to somewhat defeat the purpose of having a nose coned gear case. Then again, I have to put into perspective the years we are talking about in general.

Greg, the nose cone is only to improve hydrodynamics of the drive, not a water source.
My Bravo drive, 1987....the first year made, has an add on nose cone. Again, to improve drive performance as that first year was pretty poor. If you look at a current Bravo compared to an early one, there're huge differences.

Greg Guimond
06-15-2014, 08:20 AM
Yes, I gotcha George.

My point, (no pun intended) was that you have a coned pointy TRS factory drive to add hydrodynamic benefit, but then you loose some of that benefit by mounting a transom water pickup that creates some drag. :wrench: When is the new owner going to post up his barn find :lookaroun:

gcarter
06-15-2014, 11:36 AM
Greg, there's very little drag in a transom pickup. In fact, I'd say there's no measurable drag under 100 MPh. At that point, a different type is generally used. Virtually all race boats use them.
But there can be HUGE gains in a good nose cone. Look at the performance difference between an old Volvo drive VS a King Cobra, or other good high performance drive.
Another, almost unrelated, analogy are the bulbs on the bows of large cargo ships. Absolutely huge amounts of money is spent on refining and tank testing various bulbs in the design stage because as much as 15% reduction in operating expense can be achieved.

Conquistador_del_mar
06-15-2014, 01:03 PM
The TRS drive is a solid gear outdrive capable of holding up to relatively huge HP and torque loads so that might be a reason Warlock used that drive system in 1989 when the relatively new Bravo was not as robust and somewhat unproven. A customer might have actually wanted the proven TRS? In the 80s when I was installing lots of nose cones for customers, the rule of thumb was to put them on if the boat would do 65mph+. Since then I have since read that they only really come into play at 80mph+. Like George said, the newer Bravos are better designed housings than the older ones so they probably don't need nose cones for the length vs diameter parameter at high speeds like the older ones.
George, what is the theory of those bulbs on ships?

gcarter
06-15-2014, 04:37 PM
Bill, back in the early '70's when I was working for a Naval Architect in Houston, so little was understood about them, only that they seemed to make the water react like the ship was 10-15% longer than it was........at displacement speeds, the longer ship can be more easily driven than a shorter ship. So if you had a 400' ship, but it performed like it was 500' long, it was cheaper to operate. Take those savings, multiply them by 12 months a year, and over a life of 20 years, you can see the motivations for them.
Back to the '70's, bulbs were round, not very long, and hemispherical on the front. The height was from the keel upward to just below the light water line, or so.
Today, bulb design has seemingly taken on a life of its own. They seem to be much longer than they were when I was involved. Also many seem to have flat upper surfaces and are placed just below the water line. If you get an opportunity to see some newer versions (newer cruise ship models are always on the cruise ship somewhere) it's obvious a lot of time and effort is invested in the shape of them.
I suspect more can be gained from good bulb design than almost anything else that can be done.

Conquistador_del_mar
06-15-2014, 05:54 PM
Bill, back in the early '70's when I was working for a Naval Architect in Houston, so little was understood about them, only that they seemed to make the water react like the ship was 10-15% longer than it was........at displacement speeds, the longer ship can be more easily driven than a shorter ship. So if you had a 400' ship, but it performed like it was 500' long, it was cheaper to operate. Take those savings, multiply them by 12 months a year, and over a life of 20 years, you can see the motivations for them.
Back to the '70's, bulbs were round, not very long, and hemispherical on the front. The height was from the keel upward to just below the light water line, or so.
Today, bulb design has seemingly taken on a life of its own. They seem to be much longer than they were when I was involved. Also many seem to have flat upper surfaces and are placed just below the water line. If you get an opportunity to see some newer versions (newer cruise ship models are always on the cruise ship somewhere) it's obvious a lot of time and effort is invested in the shape of them.
I suspect more can be gained from good bulb design than almost anything else that can be done.

They are certainly an interesting modification! Thanks for taking the time to reply.