Forums
NautiqueParts.comNautiqueSkins.com - Correct Craft Upholstery and Part
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - V Bottom Specs
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

V Bottom Specs

 Post Reply Post Reply   
Author
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: V Bottom Specs
    Posted: June-10-2014 at 12:25pm

Can anyone recite;

1980 or so … first Barefoot Nautique model:
1. mid engine straight shaft length overall,
2. beam at the widest amidships chine,
3. beam at widest amidships rubrail,
4. OEM weight with 454,
5. ... annndddd, deadrise?

1991 … Excel
1. rear engine vdrive: length overall,
2. beam at widest amidships chine,
3. beam at widest amidships rubrail,
4. OEM weight with 454,
5. annnnnndddd deadrise?

… and if anyone knows where online are full specs for both models, please send the addresses along. I can't find the numbers anywhere. OK, Meddock likely didn't post the numbers ... he was alot more interested in tennis than boats and far as I know he couldn't spell barefoot.

Thanks
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Online
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-10-2014 at 12:55pm
The brochures in the reference section list the weights, lengths and beams.

You're likely out of luck on the dead rise and width at the chine though.

'79 was the first year for the BFN, FYI (not '80). What do you need these dimensions for?
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-10-2014 at 2:21pm
Great pointer, TRBenj, thank you.
Why do I want the specs? I have for years had an idea to do a custom rig on the BFN hull ... and it feels like my life is now getting round to the spot I'll have time to give it a shot.

By custom I don't mean pull a plug, I mean find a clapped out boat, cut it up and put it back together according to my vision ... so I wanted to compare dimensions and weights of the two boats to see whats what and which boat I think will best suit the project.

I had always intended to use the first BFN for the project though I always thought it a bit too small and though I've never really inspected an excel, I see now its got a bit more beam and length which i think will do me and the project well.

OK, the exccl appears to have some weight on the first BFN though the surgery I plan will take weight out of the boat, plus there's a world of lightweight high power crate motors out there which can cause the excel to further shed pounds.

I know this sounds like a wacky idea though I need to tell you two things: First, i've done this before in early nineties when I did a custom shallow deadrise outboard that simply is the best barefoot boat in the world.

When I say "I did" or "I plan to do" I refer to a scheme in which I get together with men I know over decades of fooling around with high performance boats, men who build boats for a living and will get aboard a reasonable idea to build a performance boat.

So I'm not the guy headed into the shed out back with a chainsaw, a grinder, and a carton of crazy glue.

In fact I think the mid engine boat will better suit the visual scheme I have in mind though I've very attracted to the wider beam of the later boat ... and lord knows this rig is gonna sound better than any outboard that does not have stacks.

Lemme know if you run across the beam at the chine of either boat ...

Back to Top
75 Tique View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: August-12-2004
Location: Seven Lakes, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 6097
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 75 Tique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-10-2014 at 3:21pm

                          Curiosity Meter
_____________
“So, how was your weekend?”
“Well, let me see…sun burn, stiff neck, screwed up back, assorted aches and pains….yup, my weekend was great, thanks for asking.”
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Online
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-10-2014 at 3:25pm
You wouldn't be the first to do a custom Barefoot Nautique build... Care to share what your "vision" is? I'm assuming you're intending to build a boat built to barefoot? High speeds? Any other purpose or considerations? Will this entail hull or structural modifications?

I assume you've spent some time in a few Barefoot Nautiques and are familiar with their strengths and weaknesses? Ie, it's a platform worth starting with for your purposes? While all direct drives (79-90) essentially share the same hull, the later version (87-90) has a deeper, roomier cockpit as the result of some deck and interior changes. As far as tournament ski boats go, those later bfn's are pretty roomy.
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 3:53am

I have spent a good bit of time in the first iteration of the BFN though I’ve never even seen a 2nd gen BFN or excel in the flesh, let alone had a tow by one … and in fact I wonder how the excel hull got wider.

I guess they cut a boat in half lengthwise and added s section. Do you know how they accomplished the mod? I really really doubt they did a new boat from scratch and though I still had contacts throughout the company in the late eighties when they likely did the boat and could have got the information then … I was busy with other stuff at the time and not paying attention to their shenanigans.

Truth is, I thought the company had failed to do the best they could do with the first BFN wake and though I understood the “stepchild” and therefore heavily disdained status of both the BFN at correct craft and barefooting in the AWSA community, just because I understood the community thought barefooters were skill-less cretins doesn’t mean 3 event skiers were right … or even that correct craft management profile of reasoning was the most productive approach to the market.

To be fair to the crowd there in er-land-er, I don’t think anyone at Correct Craft … or in skiing, in fact … was ready for the whopping big surge in barefoot interest that occurred in mid late seventies throughout the eighties.

Indeed, fellas like Scarpa and Seipel and Wing literally produced a market for Correct Craft and beyond what was essentially a catch-up customer relationship service effort from John Gillette’s desk, Correct Craft didn’t take the initiative to do development work to improve the first iteration BFN hull while the iron was hot.

In fact I never owned a BFN. I did spend a good bit of time behind various of the first iteration of the model … and even ordered one though subsequently decided “I can put together a better boat than the BFN,” cancelled the order and set about the roll your own task … made pretty easy, frankly, by the plethora of essentially one expression of DNA deep-v’s that came out of industrial park boat builders splash activities and the entry of high power outboard v6’s into the market.

>> … you're intending to build a boat built to barefoot? High speeds? Any other purpose or considerations? Will this entail hull or structural modifications? <<

Yes, barefoot and stick tricks are my interest so that’s my ski-event focus. I would ski in the course if one was nearby but there isn’t and I won’t put one out. I am not interested in tournament skiing so I don’t need a boat to produce or replicate tournament boat wakes … my foundation intent is, simply, produce a boat that makes wakes good for the stuff I wanna do.

After the foundation design purpose to get a good wake, my interest is to produce a boat that works great for the context in which I will use it. One early morning and one late afternoon +/- 90 minute set, up to three or four people in the boat, a mix of skill levels in free slalom and stick trick, flat water, no traffic.

I NEVER stay in a boat all day and rarely longer than 90 minutes so I don’t want hand phone antennas and disk players and radios and refrigerators and showers and all the frou frou of an RV … and no tower, thank you.

I don’t need or want a fast boat … sixty or sixty five top is OK with me, in fact I think anyone who drives or rides with any regularity in a boat at speeds much over the early-mid fifties needs a jacket and helmet. The notion is informed by experience gained in many hours spent driving boats at speeds in the 100mph range.

I do want a boat sufficiently powered and propped to make it responsive and crisp at speeds from, say, fifteen to high thirties with four people aboard.

A primary objective of my vision and need is to make the boat work well for the wide range of skills of skiers I entertain and the ability to communicate well for giggling and teaching. So that means a great boom boat, and a boat easy to get off and on of course while the boat is at rest and more: while its underway.

I understand the ski boat industry thinks … and is surely correct … they are best disposed to make boats “sexy,” to finish them to look like luxury sports cars, and though sports cars and ski boats often have fluffy plush and swoopy upholstery and seating that both men and women think suggests a spot well suited to procreative recreation. Of course the subject sports cars and ski boats universally have little room in them. I have different idea.

I think ski boats should more closely resemble a forty mile an hour carpet covered barge. Low freeboard, large flat deck, gunnel to gunnel configured to make it possible to walk and sit in comfort all over the boat, scads of easily accessible dedicated storage and … deck designed to both step off onto the boom and get back on the boat while the boat is underway.

One whopping big advantage I established on my outboard build is to configure a dedicated boom mount … that is, not use the tow post to mount the boom. The dedicated boom mount produced the ability to swing the boom the ninety degrees forward that facilitates launch and recovery and travel under a bridge.

A question in this area: I notice running-photos of the 2nd generation BFN and excel show a good bit of chine spray in the area of the aft-located tow post. If one’s gonna put a typical tow post mounted boom on one of those 2nd generation BFN’s … what does one do about the chine spray? Grin and bear it? Use an extension?

So, OK, ski boat ads entice with scantily clad gurls lolling about on fluffy cushions though it’s a fact the vision in those ads does not properly portray the kind of recreation capabilities I want in a ski boat. OK, you may say, get a grip, its advertising. To which I reply: indeed, the reptilian always wins.

… and I agree, though the people in my boat are typically muscular women, skiers, and the well developed men called to serve them … people who do not object to taking a position on my carpeted expansive deck and do not need a cushy-oh-so-fluffy chaise lounge-like environment to achieve their objectives while on the water.

>> … Will this entail hull or structural modifications?<<

To the extent that I need to remove the complete deck and dash and interior and a goodly section of the sides and transom, yes, though I don’t envision any work on the running surfaces except to straighten them. In fact I have never seen the pad on the excel so I don’t know what it is … or how it compares to the BFN first iteration … so that’s an important consideration in my choice of a boat to go to work on.

What’s your conclusion? Is the excel pad wider than the BFN, more narrow? Any change in the number or width or length of lift strakes?

Indeed, wake analysis is so subjective its difficult to make any hard edge conclusion unless one can A-B the wakes in an on the water session in which both boats are available.

Surely, such an on the water comparison is a near impossibility in this moment at least twenty five years after the boats were widely seen in the marketplace, though I’d love to hear any comment and discussion you or others may have about the differences between the original BFN and Excel wakes.

… which leads me to a question: a few months ago one of my homies who still is in the tournament world mentioned there’s a boat around these days with a good wake. I forget eggactly what manufacturer and model he said though as I recall its a west coast boat. You have an inkling of a good wake on a current boat?

Though, to tell de troot, deep down I think I’ll do a BFN or Excel, and of the two, probably a first iteration BFN, such is the iconic status of the boat. Sorta like if one is to build a thirties rod, it better be a five window 32. If one’s going for a somewhat later car, it better be a 39 or 40 Ford coupe. Sixties? … it needs to be a Chevelle 396. Roadster? Nothing but an authentic AC Ace iteration like the Kirkham. Or if one wants watch with a bunch of buttons and dials on it, nothing by a sixties black face Daytona is worth the money needed to get one of those also-rans on the wrist.

… and please sir, keep my chine beam, deadrise and in fact pad width questions in mind.

Thanks for your conversation …
Back to Top
TX Foilhead View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: February-01-2009
Location: Kingsland TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TX Foilhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 4:22am
I don't know what's in between, but from the front and the back the BFN and the Excel look exactly the same.

There's not much of a pad at all on the Excel, just wide enough to bolt on the strut.

Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 7:51am

YO!!! Foilhead!!!

Thanks for the note and information ... which I'm really surprised to get because, as I mentioned, I think a good way to make the second gen boat longer and wider would be to slice the first gen boat in half lengthwise and add a section to the pad.

So much for my smart ideas, eh???

So, the small pad of your report being the case ... do you have an idea how Correct Craft did the new bottom, or where it came from?

ManOhMan, I've always wanted to learn to foil though I'm simply not gonna pay them the price they want for one.

Whats the hourly fuel consumption of your 351 at eighteen or twenty ???
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Online
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 9:09am
Originally posted by JackXXX JackXXX wrote:


Yes, barefoot and stick tricks are my interest so that’s my ski-event focus. I would ski in the course if one was nearby but there isn’t. my foundation intent is, simply, produce a boat that makes wakes good for the stuff I wanna do.

After the foundation design purpose to get a good wake...

I don’t envision any work on the running surfaces except to straighten them.

What’s your conclusion?

Indeed, wake analysis is so subjective its difficult to make any hard edge conclusion unless one can A-B the wakes in an on the water session in which both boats are available.

I think your last statement is really the only thing that makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. You need to go out and ski the boats in question before getting too far ahead of yourself. If the idea is to leave the running surface unchanged, but reconfigure the "utility" of the boat, then you really need to make sure the wake suits your needs- because other than some slight decrease in size that might come with weight removal, the wake will be the wake.

I agree that CC could have done more with the boat during its heyday. Other than notching the keel for a 14" prop and adding some hook later on, the running surface was unchanged 79-90. The table is awesome for footing, but the wake is large, and has a washy lip that is great for catching toes. It's not a great trick boat and it's a really lousy slalom boat. Handling is also pretty poor, IMHO, due to the deep vee.

I don't really understand the desire of starting with the "iconic" direct drive BFN if you're going to modify the hull, deck and interior to the point that it's unrecognizable as a Barefoot Nautique. There are other hulls that would be better starting points it seems- Sanger DX/DXII, Malibu Sportster/echelon/response come to mind. They all have shallower or semi-vee hulls that are likely to make better all around boats. One of the bfn's strong points is it ability in rough water- both for smooth ride and knocking down the chop to ski (in the table). If that's not something you need, there are probably better options. I've never spent any time in an excel, but all reports seem to indicate a similar wake and table as the DD, but a holeshot and handling performance penalty due to the rear engine placement.

As far as speed goes, the bfn hull responds pretty well to added power. It starts to outrun its hull in the mid 50's though, so pushing it beyond that point takes more and more power. I've theorized tht the excel might be better in this respect, due to the rearward weight bias.
Back to Top
SNobsessed View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: October-21-2007
Location: IA
Status: Offline
Points: 7102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SNobsessed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 9:30am
I would think the gunnels provide torsional structure, so cutting them down is unproven territory.   Have you considered the personal liability you would assume if you build a 1 off boat? If there ever is an accident, the ambulance chasers would be all over you.



“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Ben Franklin
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 12:42pm

Wellllllll, I agree with your gunnel observation,SNobsessed, though fact is I'm gonna put a deck on the redone boat that accomplishes more coverage than the OEM deck so he entire package will be more stiff than when the boat was stock.

>> Have you considered the personal liability you would assume if you build a 1 off boat? <<<

Ya know, the idea never occurred to me though thanks for mentioning the danger. Are you an officer of the court, a highly trained prevaricator?
Though joking aside, I've built alotta stuff like this and various of my efforts have come to ignominius, often violent ends.

>> ... the ambulance chasers would be all over you.<<

Indeed, Let 'em have at it. Those folks have wine to drink steaks to eat and benzes to buy and gurls to impress too, so I don't begrudge them their efforts. Such chances and eventualities are the reason that passports and foreign jurisdicitons and disguises and readily available air travel exists.
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 1:02pm

Thanks for the note, TRBenj
>> … I don't really understand the desire of starting with the "iconic" direct drive BFN <<

Welllllll, really, this is as much an art project as anything else … for one reason because I have a great boat with which to ski so I really want to do this because I think it'll be an engaging project and cool when its done. Plus, if the project is a good boom boat ... it seems sure it will be ... I have my outboard for long line and the outboard is a better line stick trick boat than the three event tournament boats I've had a tow behind.

And as far as the “icon” desire is expressed … the examples of a Chevy power 32 five window and forty coupe and Chrysler power Henry J and et cetera are an apt corollary.

Why? The majority of 2014 citizens on the street won’t recognize those manufacturer and years though the autos are at the very top of customs lists and a fan of both auto and boat types and custom work will recognize the allusion and effort … an enumeration of fans starting with me.

Though your mention of the Sanger rang my bell and it is that boat that my olde pal mentioned to me several months ago. I just had a quick look and discovered way-high prices of Sanger examples and maybe that’s why I forgot the name. I ain’t giving ‘em six or eight grand for an age twenty boat I intend to cut up. I do have boat knowlegable operatives out west so I'll likely let them know I'm looking for a cheap sanger.

>> … but excel holeshot and handling performance may suffer penalty due to the rear engine placement. <<

Of course I didn’t know the excel doesn’t come out fast and the characteristic isn’t great. I wonder where is the excel fuel. you know?

> … first BFN begins to outrun its hull in the mid 50's though, so pushing it beyond that point takes more and more power. I've theorized tht the excel might be better in this respect, due to the rearward weight bias.<<

Yeah, well, as I mentioned I don’t need or want much beyond fifty so the characteristic doesn’t bother me … and I imagine your “excel is better over fifty due to rear weight bias” is spot on.

>> Other than notching the keel for a 14" prop and adding some hook later on, the running surface was unchanged 79-90. <<

Of course I didn’t know correct craft put a hook in the BFN … though if so, its good example of what passed for correct craft engineering in those days and maybe now. “OK, instead of adjusting the load moment and making better molds and tightening up production so we produce straight bottoms, we’ll put a hook in it that will overpower any other maladies.

The hook’ll be cheap to do and the boneheads in the market will never know the difference.” Not so different than an attempt to make a sweeping production fix of Boeing control surfaces with a fat rubber mallet just before pushback. Why not just fix that stuff, for real???

>> The table is awesome for footing, but the wake is large, and has a washy lip that is great for catching toes.<<

Un-huh, whatever are characteristics of the BFN wake, they came directly from the boat from which Correct Craft originally pulled the plug, I forget what is the boat. Do you recall?

No matter how much we all love correct craft … I built my first inboard power … six carb crane cam Pontiac 389 … rig with a correct craft wood kit in 1956 … it is all but 100% there was nobody in the correct craft plant who had much of an idea about how to do performance bottom work when they pulled the BFN plug and built the boats. Plus, you think there was anyone in the company who could barefoot at the time? Don’t forget, they all hated the idea of barefooting. It wasn’t “pure.”

In counterpoint, just for fun, I’ll say that doin’s at Mastercraft in those days were very different. Before Robbie Shirley bought his first chopper gun, he'd both worked and drove vbottom race boats for Paul Allison. NOBODY knows more about boat bottoms than Paul Allison and Robbie KNEW what he was doing around boat bottoms when he hatched mastercraft and … as it soon came to pass … proved he had great marketing sense.

Thanks for your talk and tips, TRBenj. Oh, by the way, who’s the right prop manufacturer and custom work man for the BFN?
Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: February-04-2004
Location: Twin Lakes, WI
Status: Offline
Points: 13510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 3:03pm
So Jack, it was said that CC wanted to get into this exploding barefoot waterskiing market and gave the US National team a big block second generation Ski Nautique and a Southwind 20 in late 1978/early 1979 and asked them to ski the 2 boats and tell them which one they liked better. The Southwind won and became the Barefoot we know it as. You could call Barefoot International, Mike Seipel will probably answer the phone and may have some help from that time period.

A shallower deadrise Correct Craft to do this project with just might be the 89-92 Sport Nautique. We've talked about it before here. Sounds like you want to build my Barefreak Nautique. Go for it!


In that Sport Nautique thread there is a link to other Barefoot boats non-Correct Craft. Tim already mentioned the Sanger DX/DXII and Echelon/Response/Sportster. There are many others in that thread also.
Back to Top
phatsat67 View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: March-13-2006
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 6147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote phatsat67 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 3:45pm
HW, that's what the sport should have looked like. Not a bad looking rig with a little photo shop.
Back to Top
Gary S View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: November-30-2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 14096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gary S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-11-2014 at 4:39pm
NOBODY knows more about boat bottoms than Paul Allison and Robbie KNEW what he was doing around boat bottoms when he hatched mastercraft and … as it soon came to pass … proved he had great marketing sense.

You might be interested to know that Art Cozier,retired CC employee and member here helped build Mastercraft #1 which was at the Sunnyland boat show this March.
69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 12:50am
By the way, SNObsessed, that's a great looking boat in your thumbnail. Plus, its a terrific photo. Howdja get that reflection sparkle just under the rubrail? Bouncelight???
Back to Top
SNobsessed View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: October-21-2007
Location: IA
Status: Offline
Points: 7102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SNobsessed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 1:12am
Thanks for the nice comment on our boat.

It is just va photo that Bones71 randomly took at last summer's Green Lake Reunion. No special effects were done.

I like to modify stuff too, but this toy is staying original.

There must be a gene that makes males want to improve machines.

Keep us informed via pictures as you build the frankentique.



“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Ben Franklin
Back to Top
TX Foilhead View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: February-01-2009
Location: Kingsland TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TX Foilhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 1:23am
Originally posted by JackXXX JackXXX wrote:

By the way, SNObsessed, that's a great looking boat in your thumbnail. Plus, its a terrific photo. Howdja get that reflection sparkle just under the rubrail? Bouncelight???


That's just what a properly polished boat does.

As for mileage, my Excel has seen as low as 3 gph and I would say the high end is no more than 5 gph. It depends on who's riding and what speed they like, best is when someone good rides a 30 min set about 27 mph.   The 3 gph came over a weekend where we had a lot of riders doing that along with a few +40mph runs down a 3 miles of glassy water. As long as I stay out of the secondaries (43-44) the gph is reasonable, lots of pulls out of the hole learning new tricks and it drops some, but if that's a concern we can always do hot pick ups. Between 5 and 7 gal a night is the usual for 2 to 3 hrs of riding @ 20 to 25 mph.
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 3:02am
Thanks for the reply, Hollywood.

>> … gave them a Southwind 20 in late 1978/early 1979 and asked them to ski the 2 boats and tell them which one they liked better. <<

I wasn’t thinking about ski boats much in late seventies … and even if I was, I forget what I thought and likely my “mind wasn’t right” on the subject … so the idea dint occur to me then though: perhaps the drill down question of interest is “where did southwind get the bottom?”

… and I also never considered using any other boat than the 1st gen BFN, that is until I came here and learned of the excel from youse guys …

… so your suggestion of the sport nautique … and the thread to which you pointed me … now falls on receptive ears, except for the diehard notion than this project boat, an art piece, needs to be a gen-u-ine 1st gen BFN.

I do like yer Barefreak photo.

>> Sanger DX/DXII and Echelon/Response/Sportster. There are many others <<

It very well can be that you … and others … are correct in suggesting a look at those other boats though I must say that california boats set this easterner’s teeth on edge. Objective analysis makes the notion it difficult to pin though it is a fact of my thought about what works well in the performance boats world and what does not.

Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 3:09am

>> ... here must be a gene that makes males want to improve machines. <<

Indeed, a hardcode set buried deep in the reptilian.

>> Keep us informed via pictures as you build the frankentique.<<

Indeed I will ... though I must say, alot has to happen before this gets underway so it won't be in a heartbeat.

Great name, thankyou ...
Back to Top
JackXXX View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: June-10-2014
Location: Titusville
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackXXX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June-12-2014 at 3:51am


>> ... three to 5 burn <<

Good numbers eh???

My carbureted three liter v6 burns 3 to 4 at eighteen or so on a 3500 pound, fuel and equipment, no people, rig.

Couple thousand hours in that boat and I've never calculated it at barefoot set speeds. Too frightened to see the result.

>> ... +40mph runs <<

ManOhMan, my knowledge of foils is limited to the DynaFlite ski mounted foil I had back in the dark ages though I tell you true, I can't imagine a foil at 40 miles an hour. As I recall the Dynaflite was a ca 15mph ride.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Copyright 2024 | Bagley Productions, LLC