Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: best bottom surface for speed?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    357
    Rep Power
    0

    best bottom surface for speed?

    I am assuming that clean gel coated bottom maybe with wax is the fastest hull surface for Donzi?

    Not a lot of discussion of bottom treatment and related speed here. In Michigan here folks are using a clear not sanding product for surface treatment called "Scatt" and claim a faster surface but it is flat finish. Any opinions out there before I make a mistake?
    Dr. d

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,015
    Rep Power
    22
    Well you see, it depends on what type of oil you're running and what prop you have....


    Don
    '01 22 Classic, 502/B1
    And a bunch of other stuff

    "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough" - Mario Andretti

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,215
    Rep Power
    23
    technically a matte / flat whatever surface is better than shiny. you can go too far however, so think wet sanded finish, not rough.

    But, in our world as pleasure boaters, it won't make any real difference relative to all the other stuff. i.e., your time is better spent elsewhere.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,683
    Rep Power
    34
    What Bob said w/one difference;
    a sharp corner at the transom/bottom corner is a good thing.
    It would be hard to quantify, but larger boats will appreciate 2-3 MPH increase in speed.
    BTW, I sanded the TR bottom w/360 (I think). Looks flat.
    This is akin to placing vortex generators on the after part of aircraft wings...basically it rids the boat of boundary layer.
    A smooth bottom and wax is about the worst you can do.
    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    870
    Rep Power
    23
    I remember this one guy who had a special wax......
    Maddy's Daddy
    L.I.,N.Y.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,683
    Rep Power
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by maddad View Post
    i remember this one guy who had a special wax......
    lol!
    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,683
    Rep Power
    34
    I think it would be interesting to sand the bottom of a 22 w/something like 80 grit, first in a longitudinal direction and test, and then sand in a transverse direction, repeat tests.

    Here's what I did on the TR;



    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    21
    Apparently you want water to stick to the hull so you get water to water contact. This ceates less friction than water to wax contact. I guess with the flat finish it retains the water to hull contact better.
    machinist ,bore it deeper,ream it bigger, and lap it to a fine finish



    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...=2&theater

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,731
    Rep Power
    22
    In nature...a sharks skin is rough...creates a buffer/turbulence against the water and makes them faster. On a boat it traps a small amount of air and reduces drag/friction.
    "YIPPY-KAI-YAY"
    1993 Donzi Classic 22 by Chris Craft...
    White with Yellow stripes...
    502 King Cobra...
    Its hard to be humble when you own a Donzi. (In my humble opinion).
    To hear it run...click the link below...
    http://s922.photobucket.com/albums/a...er_media_share

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    694
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Eller View Post
    In nature...a sharks skin is rough...creates a buffer/turbulence against the water and makes them faster. On a boat it traps a small amount of air and reduces drag/friction.

    We have a winner.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,744
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tmdog View Post
    We have a winner.
    Yes, the blow boaters wet sand their hulls. So do some of the race boaters. it adds a boundary layer. It works. It also attracts water scum. I will trade the .0005 mph for a clean hull.

    Hp = speed!
    2001 35 Fountain Lightning w500 EFI's
    1973 X-18 - Merc 383 Magnum
    1974 Chris Craft Roamer with 1271 TI's

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,279
    Rep Power
    21
    I'm guessing a dirty hull is more noticeable than the speed difference, for speeds under 75 mph.











    Hey, I said I was guessing.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    0
    Porpoise skin - really pricey but makes the tree huggers crazy...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,848
    Rep Power
    22
    I concur, a sanded bottom is fastest.
    Cheers,
    Pismo
    1996 22 Classic
    Red with Stainless Windshield
    Stock Gen VI 502 Magnum MPI-415hp
    Stock Bravo I
    25" Mirage Plus
    74.5mph best @ 5050rpm GPS (Speedo said 80)
    27" Labbed Mirage Plus
    75.5mph best @ 4800rpm GPS (Speedo said 82)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    14,603
    Rep Power
    38
    Many of you know I have been pitching that a smooth bottom is slow, I know from my own racing experience. Some have read my posts and below is some input from an engineer I copied from another site

    I would not wax the pad. Let me qualify this in that I have no data to back this up, but I am an engineer with some fluid dynamics background. Here is why I say not to wax the pad. When fluid flows over the surface at relatively low speeds, (speeds that a typical boat would run are relatively low compared to many other applications such as air over a jetliner wing), it flows in what is called a laminar flow pattern. Essentially it flows smoothly and evenly over the surface. This smooth flow has a particular drag coefficient. When the flow reaches a high enough speed the flow pattern changes to what is known as turbulent flow.
    Under turbulent flow conditions the drag coefficient is significantly reduced as compared to the drag coefficient under laminar flow conditions. Here is where waxing comes in: Turbulence at the surface/fluid interface can be induced at lower velocities by roughness of the surface. In other words, a smooth surface would facilitate a smoother flow pattern and thus higher drag than a rough surface. As JB mentioned one of the best practical examples of this effect is golf balls. The first solid golf balls were smooth with no dimples. It did not take the pros of that day long to figure out that a ball that had been hit several time, scuffing up the surface, would fly farther than a new ball right out of the box. Pros began to use their practice rounds to hit all of the balls that they would use in the actual tournament rounds to scuff them up before the tournament began. Once the manufacturers understood what the pros were doing they began to produce balls with the pre-made "scuffs" and thus the birth of the modern dimpled golf ball.
    No matter what your beliefs are "GOD BLESS AMERICA"

    Fully retired marine tech near 60 years in the biz.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •