100 MPH PULSARE?

[cooperider]

We used to have an insert for a notch similar to that laying around somewhere, but with all the housecleaning it probably got tossed years ago.

Checkmate has tried these notches, I think the Starflite had one, the Starflite 24 like merc245 has has the center notch and a smaller notch on each side. See if he can get a picture of that.

My Trimate I has a notch.

 

[JUPITER PULSARE]

Coop, when you look at the bottom of the Pulsare in your pictures, the pad runs parrallel and is only raised about 1/2" or so (I'll have to measure my boat to be exact). I bet if Checkmate delta'd the pad, made it slightly wider aft and raised it higher, the boat would gain quite a bit of speed. I don't think there is enough height in the pad...(but again that's a two edged sword-tall pads can make a boat hard to handle..specially if you fall off the pad at speed) I could always feel my Velocity climb up on the pad...in fact, you could actually here the surface chop slapping the bottom of the boat when the boat was "flying" the pad. My Pulsare seems to have a fine line where it finally breaks free...it's like someone lit the afterburners!!! If you drive a Pulsare and slowly keep bumping up the throttle, eventually you'll find that sweet spot where the boat jumps and takes off..with my set up it's usually at about 69-70 mph. I believe, due to the shallow height of the pad, that there is still alot of wetted surface (producing drag) until it hits that "sweet" spot and flys! If fact, if you go back to the pictures of the Tuff 21, look how tall the pad is compared to the Pulsare!!

 

[cooperider]

Coop, when you look at the bottom of the Pulsare in your pictures, the pad runs parrallel and is only raised about 1/2" or so (I'll have to measure my boat to be exact). I bet if Checkmate delta'd the pad, made it slightly wider aft and raised it higher, the boat would gain quite a bit of speed. I don't think there is enough height in the pad...(but again that's a two edged sword-tall pads can make a boat hard to handle..specially if you fall off the pad at speed) I could always feel my Velocity climb up on the pad...in fact, you could actually here the surface chop slapping the bottom of the boat when the boat was "flying" the pad. My Pulsare seems to have a fine line where it finally breaks free...it's like someone lit the afterburners!!! If you drive a Pulsare and slowly keep bumping up the throttle, eventually you'll find that sweet spot where the boat jumps and takes off..with my set up it's usually at about 69-70 mph. I believe, due to the shallow height of the pad, that there is still alot of wetted surface (producing drag) until it hits that "sweet" spot and flys! If fact, if you go back to the pictures of the Tuff 21, look how tall the pad is compared to the Pulsare!!

I would think your on to something there. As far as the thickness of the pad.

 

[JUPITER PULSARE]

Interestingly enough, there's a thread on S&F right now on the Tuff 21. One of the guys has a stock boat with a 300X. The best speed he's seen was with no gas on a cold winter day at 97 MPH. He's consistanly running 94 MPH....so you guys with the stock Pulsare 2100/300X's are knockin on his back door...and the guys that build the Tuff boats are die hard race fanatics! If we keep tweaking and tinkering, I know some Pulsare 2100 is going to hit 100 MPH!!!

 

[boatman4021]

When comparing the 2100 to the 2000, remember that the 2000 may have a wider beam, but the bottom width is the same. If you look closely, the sides on the 2000 have a much steeper angle. boatman

 

[JUPITER PULSARE]

When comparing the 2100 to the 2000, remember that the 2000 may have a wider beam, but the bottom width is the same. If you look closely, the sides on the 2000 have a much steeper angle. boatman

Hey Boatman, at the upper speed realm, I don't think the beam would make much of a difference as the only thing touching water would be the last couple feet of boat length wise and the pad width wise....it may make a difference aerodynamically though..?? Also, the Pulsare's tall windshield may be holding it back. Many of these other boats have no windshield, just a short, raised, tooled in windscreen...maybe Checkmate could tool up a lower, more swept back windscreen made of light weight material as an option for the Pulsare!!!!!

 

[SCT]

Jup- I started that thead on SF about Tuff. I wanted to see what the bottom looked like.. Interesting thoughts on the 2100 pad though. Like everything in life I think there is a compromise in ride vs top speed. I'm sure CM could design a 2100 bottom that would run w/ a Tuff, Progression etc but would you get the ride comfort and easy to drive?

The guy running 94 is a real light Superboat not a Tuff.

 

[merc245]

Ask and you shall receive, I've the transom notch, these rear steps or "notches" and a set of steps just forward out of frame apx 5ftish forward of transom that is just as small as the rear steps.

 

[Mark]

So how many Starflites had that notch on the sides? My Starliner doesn't. I would think it would give a little more bow lift.

 

[boatman4021]

Hey Jup, you are right. That is what got me to thinking. At 70 to 75 mph, the 2100 at the transom has more than just the pad touching the water, but not quite all the way out to the chines. At higher speeds, this is even less. That is why I think that the smaller pad will be faster at higher speeds. When all that is in the water is the pad. As for the 2000, the bottom is the same as the 2100 for the most part. The strakes are different in the front, but that part of the boat won't matter at 75+mph. What I do think makes a difference between the 2 boats is the angle of the sides on the 2000. My last 2100 ran 74gps and was stable and easy to drive. My 2000 with the same motor and prop ran 76gps and felt like it was going to lift off at any time. I think that was from the angled sides catching more air. As for the Progression 22, the 2100 is already as fast. I called and talked to one of there reps, and the speed numbers he told me were all at sea level and in salt water. Then he proceeded to tell me that they ran slower in fresh water and we all know what elevation does. What I got out of the conversation was that the 2100 with the same power was 1 to 2 mph faster than the Prog and $15000 cheaper. With all that has been said in the thread, we are all overlooking the fact that the 2100 hull does not need to be modified or improved. It is faster than anything else in it's class(weight). Lighten it up to 800lbs. and give it a try. Bluehealer just ran 92.4 with a box stock 300xs. No fancy tricks! If you look at most of the guys who are running 100+ with a v-hull of this size, everything on the boat is tricked out. Give Blue a little more prop and take 500lbs. off the boat and let's see what happens. Also, I would like to see some numbers on other boats that are in the same weight class the 2100. I bet you won't find one that comes within 5 mph of the C-mate. I know, I talk(type) too much, but just my 2-cents worth. Thanks Checkmate for building such great boats. boatman

 

[SCT]

You guys bring up some good points.

Here is the Tuff 21 that ran 103. As you can tell it is a pure raceboat (stripped, race hatch, exotic lay-up (1000 lbs) vs a stock 2100 pleasure boat. So I think Bman is probably right that lb per lb the 2100 can run w/ any V.

 

[JUPITER PULSARE]

Ok, now you guys have me really thinking. Doug Smith needs to start reading these threads!!!!! If Checkmate can tool a race hatch to cover the rear seats, and tool a low profile fairing in place of the windshield, I would bet the boat would pick up at least 3 mph just from improving the aerodynamics at those speeds. You wouldn't even have to touch the bottom....If Bluehealer can break 92 MPH with a stock setup and 28 pitch prop...I bet a labbed 30/31 prop with the mods I just suggested and removing his bow pads, pass. seat, ski locker doors, etc. would net 95-97 MPH easily.....

 

[cooperider]

I took a look at the 2100 and 2000 bottoms today, the molds are right next to each other.

The strakes are in the same place, the pad is slightly wider on the 2100, and slightly deeper on the 2000.

The strakes are cupped on the 2100, and flat on the 2000.

The transom has a beveled edge on the 2100, the 2000 doesn't.

BTW, there is only about 8 inches difference in lenth between the two boats.
Thats nose to transom, not nose to the back of the rear of the boat.

 

[cooperider]

Ask and you shall receive, I've the transom notch, these rear steps or "notches" and a set of steps just forward out of frame apx 5ftish forward of transom that is just as small as the rear steps.

Thats like 3 notches on the back right? One in the middle, and one on each side.

 

[merc245]

thats corrrect.

 

[hotdaddy27]

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

 

[bluehealer]

By the way

mines not a bow rider.

 

[Mark]

I was reading some stuff from Jim Russell over on S & F and he has a calculator that can determine the optimum pad width for each size/weight hull. Judging from what he writes it would seem a wider pad would be even more necessary to overcome the drag created at 100 MPH. In one example he sited in this old article http://www.aeromarineresearch.com/adverts/F&PB_Sept2005.html a 12" pad would increase the top speed of a 1700# boat from 90 to 98 MPH.

 

[cooperider]

Any updates?????

 

[Water Bug]

The wider pad on the late model Allison was in part due to a problem with the narrow pad having a real bad chine problem at high speed. the narrow pad was faster the wide pad more stable. With the drag boats that I ran the last few MPH that I was hunting was always found with a custom prop. I'm out of the drag boats now but for you boys that are going to try this someone should contact Steve Tillman at Tillman Propeller in mobile he builds props for some of the fastes boats in the country. Drag Boats and Offshore Boats from all over the world He always gave me good advice on props and setup.. REAL DOWN TO EARTH WITH OUT ALL THE BS