posted 10-15-2012 07:36 PM ET (US)        

A lot of folks over on the fast-boat forums use large setback jackplates as it appears some (but apparently not all) hulls can gain a fractional little bit of speed form it. But these are performance boats with double or more the power-weight ratio of your typical Whaler, where a level static float is not coveted as much as in our Whaler community here.

Sooo anyway, what does Whaler Drive give you?

Is there something about its design where that long moment arm doesn't ruin the level static float?

Forgive my newbieness. Just trying to understand Whaler Drive.

posted 10-16-2012 12:38 AM ET (US)            

It also provides a softer re-entry at higher speeds travelling in bigger swells

posted 10-16-2012 11:53 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Who says a Whaler Drive kills the speed potential?

---

Boston Whaler does. They told Larry, when he ordered his Outrage 25, the Whaler Drive option would limit the speed and they recommended he order a full transom instead and install a bracket, which he did.

posted 10-16-2012 11:54 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The Whaler Drive does not make for a very fuel efficient boat, either.

---

posted 10-16-2012 12:01 PM ET (US)            

"Then I .." said the little red hen.

posted 10-16-2012 12:24 PM ET (US)            

To make a comparison between an OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive and an OUTRAGE 25 may not be particularly consistent, either. An OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive is only a few inches shorter than an OUTRAGE 25, so the lengths are close, but the beam is also smaller on the OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive, 7-foot 5-inches compared to 8-feet.

I don't recall any really rigorous comparisons between Whaler Drive and non-Whaler Drive boats in which the only variable was the Whaler Drive. There are some anecdotal comparisons, but there are typically many other variables involved--different outboard engines, different propellers, different weights, different days, weather, environment, and so on.

posted 10-16-2012 01:53 PM ET (US)            

What about the coveted "level float" attitude while at rest, that I've read so often about on these pages? How does WD affect that?

posted 10-16-2012 03:16 PM ET (US)            

A WD certainly affects the dynamics of the boat - simply by moving the CG of the "system" aft. The boat (any body)moves and rotates about the CG. In view of these facts, a WD would tend to stabalize, to smooth the response of the boat.

But, the response of the boat is affected by the water conditions - which has not even been mentioned in the discussion. So - with the comments regarding on the same boat with and without the WD, the water conditions have to be compariable.

posted 10-16-2012 06:26 PM ET (US)            

I was going to say that but jimh said I should not make that comparison and I was comparing his boat to mine.

John

posted 10-16-2012 08:39 PM ET (US)            

--an OUTRAGE 20
--an OUTRAGE 22
--and OUTRAGE 20 Whaler Drive

The OUTRAGE 20 and OUTRAGE 22 have hulls of the same width. The OUTRAGE 22 is 2-feet longer. An OUTRAGE 20 Whaler Drive is very similar to an OUTRAGE 22.

The comparison is most rigorous if all three boats use the same engine--literally the same engine moved from boat to boat. And, of course, the same propeller. The testing period would need to be short, perhaps only covering a matter of a few hours, in the same water, the same temperatures, and the same general conditions.

posted 10-16-2012 11:31 PM ET (US)            

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Whaler Drive does not make for a very fuel efficient boat, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 10-17-2012 05:55 AM ET (US)            

Length/Beam Ratio
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003549.html

Readers interested in learning more about the design of the Whaler Drive should read my article which speculates about some of the reasons for the Whaler Drive at

Whaler Drive Design Fundamentals
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/010766.html

posted 10-17-2012 12:22 PM ET (US)            

I do not know who said this, but I concur if the hulls are the same.

posted 10-17-2012 02:27 PM ET (US)         

Even better, let's just call that statement that tom CVlark posted in my belhalf as "silly" and "baloney", as is often said about things I post here. So I am happy to see that the real experts here now agree with JimH, that the Whaler Drive appendage, discontinued by Boston Whaler when the 23 Walkaround came out in 1991, does not decrease top speed potential or fuel economy.

So we have JimH, our esteemed Moderator, saying his 22 Revenge with WD does 44 (on a good day) with a 225 HP DFI Evinrude E-tec.

Then we also have JimP, one of our esteemed contributors in Alaska, and former Coast Guard officer, who say his same 22 Revenge , without WD, and with a same HP 225 DFI Mercury Optimax, does 49 MPH, and gets better fuel economy than JimH.

Since you experts here can't have it both ways, which is it?

1. The 225 Mercury blows away the 225 Evinrude in power and economy.

or

2. The Whaler Drive kills top speed and economy.

posted 10-17-2012 02:44 PM ET (US)            

In the realm of Boston Whaler boats, the only reasonable comparison that I can find which would tend to isolate the Whaler Drive as the influence on speed and fuel economy is one where a 20-foot hull with Whaler Drive is pitted against a 22-foot hull without Whaler Drive. This comparison would have very similar hulls with a difference in only the last two feet of the hull.

The comparison you cite with jimp's boat is flawed; the environments are completely different. I know you like to cite that comparison to try to draw an inference about the horsepower of a Mercury engine compared to the horsepower of an Evinrude with each having the same cowling decal, but, no matter how often you present it the same flaws spoil the comparison. Too many uncontrolled factors spoil the comparison.

posted 10-17-2012 03:54 PM ET (US)            

It would also be obvious that marine service provider, which ordinarily charge for their services by the foot, would charge more to paint the bottom of a 22 foot Whaler with Whaler Drive than it would to paint the bottom of a 22 foot Whaler with a notched transom.

What does the Whaler Drive do? It extends the hull length by 2 feet (or 3 feet in the case of the 27 foot hull) versus the models without Whaler Drive.

posted 10-17-2012 09:40 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I don't recall any really rigorous comparisons between Whaler Drive and non-Whaler Drive boats in which the only variable was the Whaler Drive. There are some anecdotal comparisons, but there are typically many other variables involved--different outboard engines, different propellers, different weights, different days, weather, environment, and so on.

---

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. We have never had the same boat and motor tested with, and without, the Whaler Drive appendage. It is high time we put this silly speculation based on anecdotal reports to rest.

Jim -- I suggest you remove the Whaler Drive from your boat and test your E-TEC with an aftermarket bracket like Larry's Armstrong bracket.

posted 10-17-2012 10:09 PM ET (US)            

Now I have to ask: From the picture, it looks so well blended with the hull--is it fiberglass and foam like the hull, too?

posted 10-18-2012 07:19 AM ET (US)            

Can you point us to the data where there is a 10 MPH penalty by having a Whaler Drive on the boat versus not having such?

posted 10-18-2012 07:26 AM ET (US)            

Yes. Fiberglass and foam. Unlike an aluminum set back bracket like Larry has on his Outrage, there are no inspection plates providing access to the interior of a Whaler Drive. It's all sealed up.

posted 10-18-2012 09:27 AM ET (US)            

"...is some or all of the Whaler Drive still in the water when the boat is fully on a plane?"

In my observation most of the Whaler Drive is still in the water when the boat is fully on plane, but a lot of the Whaler Drive is in aerated water. I think the design of the Whaler Drive was done to intentionally induce air into the water running under the Whaler Drive. I think this was done for the same purpose that "steps" are put into the hull bottoms of boats which are intended to be very high-speed planing hull boats, that is, to get some air under the hull. I believe the purpose of getting air under the hull is to reduce hull drag and also create a bit of air cushion under the hull.

I have posted some images that show the water coming off the transom of the Whaler Drive. Here are some links:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ E-TEC_WhalerDriveOneHoleUp816x612.jpg

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/ETEC250HO/wake800x588. jpg
This image was originally captioned "Airy Wake" because is shows how much aerated water comes off the Whaler Drive.

As Peter notes, on the 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive the Whaler Drive has a flat pad on the bottom; it does not come to a vee like the rest of the hull.

posted 10-22-2012 01:26 PM ET (US)            

Recently their was a 20WD thread. In that thread someone mentioned they had a recent 200 Honda on 20wd outrage. He reported top speeds of low 40's. I am pretty sure 22 outrage with 200 hp would run mid 40's. obviously this is a sample size of 1 for the 20wd. The other 20wd or in the post says he has a worn out 225 that runs 42mph.

Comparing 22wd & 25's. 22wd outrage with twin 150's, it seems like they run about 48mph (I did some research a while back trying to find 400hp on 22wd and found many examples of 300hp 22wd OR). Twin 150's on a 25 Outrage is usually a 50+ mph boat. The 25' whaler is wider and significantly heavier so it should be slower.

posted 10-23-2012 09:36 AM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl

posted 10-23-2012 01:52 PM ET (US)            

But until the race is run, we can have fun speculating. Do you think a REVENGE 22 with notched transom and a 225-HP outboard engine can reach 54.6-MPH? That seems awfully fast. I'd be surprised it it can hit 48-MPH.

posted 10-23-2012 02:09 PM ET (US)            

With our current boat that weighs nearly twice as much we run two newer Optimax engines and can get to 47mph. The other owner claims 50mph. Interesting the gas milage is far better than the single Optimax on the much smaller 22 Revenge.

posted 10-23-2012 03:30 PM ET (US)         

"Then we also have JimP, one of our esteemed contributors in Alaska, and former Coast Guard officer, who says his same 22 Revenge, without WD, and with a same HP 225 DFI Mercury Optimax, does 49 MPH, and gets better fuel economy than JimH."

5 MPH sounds about right to me on the difference between a cut transom and a Whaler Drive model.

If transom brackets or jackplates improve performance at all, it would be an improvement over a cut transom model, not a WD model.

posted 10-24-2012 07:55 PM ET (US)            

A shot of my notched transom V22 Revenge at optimum full economy trim. The power is a 1992 200 Evinrude TXENE, rpm is 3600, speed 28, mpg 2.8. I was surprised at how high the bow looks.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d137/jmartin-/150ee78d.jpg

Now somewhere on this site is a picture of jimh's Whaler Drive Revenge 22 on plane and maybe we can compare.

posted 10-25-2012 01:17 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I am pretty sure 22 outrage with 200 hp would run mid 40's.

---

My notched transom Outrage 22 Cuddy (with a T-top and enclosure, and bottom paint) runs right at 40 mph with a 200 hp outboard. I'm running a 4-blade prop for better holeshot and holding in rough water. I might be able to squeak a bit more top speed if I optimized my prop selection for that. Mid 40's might be tough the way my boat is configured.

The point here is that it's tough to get an apples to apples comparison in terms of rigging, props, weight of gear on board, etc. I imagine that at some point Whaler must have done some performance tests on the hulls with the boats configured with the same engines, props, etc. Has anyone made an inquiry with Boston Whaler about the availability of such test results?

posted 10-25-2012 03:44 PM ET (US)            

Saying all this so you think a notched transom design would offer a better quicker hole shot over the full transom?

Martyn

posted 11-02-2012 02:37 PM ET (US)            

It is all well and good to dredge up from memory chance remarks made by various people about their various theories of the influence of the Whaler Drive on the top speed potential of a Boston Whaler classic hull, but such recollections are not particularly dispositive--that is, they do nothing to settle the issue.

It takes only the briefest moment of thought to consider the inherent conflict of the suggestion that a Whaler Drive removed 10-MPH of speed from a hull. This is a radical suggestion, and I can counter it with just a simple argument:

If after inventing and experimenting with the configuration that has become known as the Whaler Drive, if Boston Whaler had found that it reduced the top speed of their boats by 10-MPH would they then have gone to the bother of adding it to their products? Imagine this situation:

Bob Dougherty spends six months developing the Whaler Drive, and shows it to the top guys at Boston Whaler. "Here it is," he says, "and it's going to add several thousand dollars to the cost and cut 10-MPH off the speed." Do you think Boston Whaler would have ever put the Whaler Drive into production on that basis?

Now we can let the philosophers and the grumpy old men continue to tell us that the Whaler Drive is going to cut 10-MPH off the speed, or we can behave like rational men of science and conduct a few tests.

posted 11-03-2012 01:06 PM ET (US)         

Now that we all agree, has anybody ever noticed what an ugly duckling these Whaler Drive contraptions are, and even worse when partially bottom painted? From a design point of view, they have no relation to the shape of the hull to which they are attached, look completely like the afterthought they are, have a really strange rounded shape, look totally obsolete and out of date, and generally detract from the lines of the 2nd generation Outrage hulls. I guess that's the appearance price one has to pay for the higher top end speed and superior fuel economy, and for trying to pretend a 22' WD Outrage is really a same size boat as a 25' standard Outrage.

A prudent buyer would have simply skipped the ugly duckling 22 with the WD appendage, and bought a cut transom 25 and have achieved the same speed and same fuel economy for your HP dollar, plus a lot more boat, beam, and sea keeping ability.

posted 11-03-2012 03:07 PM ET (US)            

You have to wonder about the marketing people and what they were telling customers. If Boston Whaler were telling customers that the Whaler Drive

-- was an expensive way to slow the boat by 10-MPH,

--added at least $3,000 to perhaps $10,000 to the cost, and

--created an unattractive appendage to the stern that ruined the boat's lines,

did they then instead tell the customers they ought to get a Sea Drive blank and make their own engine bracket? In either case, why did so many people buy Whaler Drive boats?

It has been my opinion for a long time that the most reasonable application of the Whaler Drive should have been on the 25-foot hull. It made the 25-foot hull two-feet longer. The jump to the 27-foot hull is much too great. You cannot easily trailer a 27-foot hull due to the beam, but you can easily trailer a 25-foot hull with Whaler Drive. It did not make sense to me why someone would order a 20-foot hull and add the Whaler Drive; just get the 22-foot hull would be the more logical choice. The same more or less applies to the 22-footer; just get a 25-footer. I have said this before.

However, it seems like the real attraction of the Whaler Drive is the closed transom, the swim platform, and the improved ride characteristics. Some people get too obsessed with top speed. Top speed is just horsepower, and if you want top speed get lots of horsepower.

posted 11-04-2012 07:57 PM ET (US)            

--the single-engine Whaler Drive boats are cheapened-out versions

posted 11-04-2012 11:54 PM ET (US)            

They suck for moorage! If you have 25 foot boat you now have a 27 plus a bit more with engines set back further. If you have the bow extension which most do you are now in a 30-32 foot long boat. 32 foot boat is very expensive to keep in the water vs say a 25 foot model with cut transom. That boat might stretch out to 27ish with motors and bow extension. Several hundreds of dollars a year.

posted 11-05-2012 07:35 PM ET (US)            

By the way, I have been thinking about the set up with the Sea Drive blank, an engine bracket with no buoyancy box, and twin engines. What I see in that rig is as follows:

--dramatic shift in static trim to very bow high

--strong tendency for bow rise in transition to plane

--great concern for swamping engine when coming off plane

--no added running length to hull so no gain in ride characteristics, and perhaps a loss due to shifting of so much weight so far aft without any support from buoyant force in the hull

posted 11-06-2012 07:40 AM ET (US)            

I do worry about you when it comes time to re-power. With no buoyancy box, you will never be able to put a pair of VERADO engines on the bracket. The weight increase would be tragic. The OptiMax might still be available, but there will be an increase in weight compared to those relatively light 2.5-liter engines you have now. But I think you'd have to settle for a pair of 150-HP OptiMax engines, as the big block V6 OptiMax engines would be too heavy and too much power--you know they make about 50-percent more horsepower than the cowling decal says.

posted 11-06-2012 11:20 AM ET (US)            

In the new emissions compliant era outboard motors, keeping the weight of the 440+ HP* on the bracket the same so as not to change the balance of the boat, about the best you can do is about 350 HP**.

* Estimate of output of emissions non-compliant twin 200 HP Mercury outboard motors by owner of emissions non-compliant twin 200 HP Mercury outboard motors.

posted 11-06-2012 01:41 PM ET (US)            

However, there are absolutely zero moments in my Boston Whaler boating life where I want to run 75-MPH. First, I am usually in some water attached to the Great Lakes and the water is seldom that calm. Next I don't want to power my boat to run 75-MPH. And third, if I did have the calm water and the power to run 75-MPH I would not want to burn that much fuel.

Typically the ride characteristics of a boat are related to the length of the boat hull, with it being generally appreciated that longer boats ride better. A longer boat encounters the waves in multiples. If waves are spaced at ten-foot intervals an 18-footer can only be on two waves at a time. A 25-footer can be on three waves at once and that makes the ride smoother.

It is well known that keeping weight out of the ends of the boat improves the ride. If you want to reduce pitching in a hull, get the weight out of the ends and move it toward the center. A boat with inboard power will ride differently than the same hull with outboard power because the engine weight is located inboard and low.

posted 11-06-2012 02:30 PM ET (US)            

I'm now down to a boat that has a 26'7" LOA and only an 8'6" beam so less precision is needed. But the funny thing is that for me the smaller boat almost seems harder to back into the slip than the Whaler 27 WD because there is almost too much room. ;)

posted 11-08-2012 11:47 PM ET (US)            

Many of the hulls tended to have steps in the bottom to help get some air under the hull. The longer boats had three sets of steps.

Of course, the new boats had the engine bracket molded into the hull as part of the structure, not attached like a Whaler Drive. But, interestingly, there was an Everglades boat with something that looked like a two-piece Whaler Drive bolted on to the transom.

I think we have to thank Bob Dougherty for the foresight to make the Whaler Drive have plenty of reserve buoyancy. A Whaler Drive will be able to handle the weight of the heavier four-cycle outboard engines of today. It is my opinion that a Whaler Drive boat would be a good choice for re-power with a VERADO L6. It could tolerate the weight, and the enclosed transom and stern deck will be a perfect place to hide the power steering pump and other accessories (such as black boxes and distribution boxes for the wiring harnesses).

In the photo gallery I think there is only one boat shown with an Armstrong Bracket. This is probably a good indication that the Armstrong Bracket approach is no longer the way to go with heavy four-cycle engines.

posted 11-11-2012 01:48 PM ET (US)            

If we take the time to compare the two boats or at least relevant to this discussion of whether whaler drives are causing the haul to be up to 10mph or more less than a notched transom, it doesn't seem to hold much truth in my situation. The theory does make sense that it could hold the boat back Im not convinced 10mph or more and my boat proves that. I have not experienced on any of my whalers. For example our 22 Revenge non whaler drive haul was lucky to get 44 but our much heavier 25 (30-32) gets better speeds and yes far better gas milage. I just need two large V6 engines to achieve that. At that point we can make our own personal opinions if its is actually worth it or not.

Will whaler drives cause a haul to burn more gas? Yes, I think there may be some truth to that in some situations. Do the engines have to work harder in some cases yes I think they might. For example in a following sea climbing up a backside of a wave. This kind of sea in our boat proves to be very stable safe comfortable ride but boy it will drag a great deal and burn tremendous amount of fuel to clime up and down large swells.

posted 11-15-2012 09:14 AM ET (US)            

--robs the boat of 10-MPH of speed

--turns the boat into "an ugly duckling"

--makes the boat look obsolete

--ruins the lines of the classic hull

--is purchased by owners who want to "pretend" they have a bigger boat

--has inferior seakeeping characteristics compared to other models

--if used with a single engine represents a "cheap" installation

--is an afterthough.

Let's look at afterthought. The word means "an idea occurring later." I think that is a good definition. Larry uses afterthought as a pejorative, but that shading is not mandatory.

In the case of the Whaler Drive, the idea for it did occur after the classic hulls were already designed. The brilliance of the Whaler Drive is its ability to be added onto the existing hulls. To mold the Whaler Drive into the hull form would have meant creating entirely new molds for three or four lengths of hull. Boston Whaler molds for Unibond hulls are very elaborate and expensive constructions. We have already seen that Boston Whaler at this time in its history was very stingy with money to make new molds. Boston Whaler was using the same basic hull mold for many models of boats, adding different superstructure or deck arrangements to the same hull. It would have been very radical to create an entirely new hull mold to provide for a molded-in engine bracket.

With Unibond construction there is also the concern for the hull design being able to be filled with foam without creating voids. This is a problem unique to Boston Whaler's method of hull construction. Any hull shape or appendage has to be made in such a way that it can become foam filled. This criterion may have influenced hull design. Perhaps the dreaded Eurotransom look employed by Whaler is in part due to the foam filling process.

Larry's latest potshot at the Whaler Drive as afterthought exposes all Boston Whaler owners to criticism of anything added to a Boston Whaler boat after it leaves the mold. For example, is the addition of an arch also an afterthought? Why, yes, of course. It was an idea that occurred later. If not made part of the original design, then by Larry's critical eye it becomes an afterthought.

posted 11-15-2012 11:21 AM ET (US)            

--turn the boat into an ugly duckling

--ruin the lines of the classic hull

--make the boat look obsolete

posted 11-17-2012 10:23 AM ET (US)            

Before this discussion took place I was very pleased with my boat, my Boston Whaler with Whaler Drive. I loved my boat. It was, in my naive and unsophisticated mind, a perfect boat.

But now I have learned the truth, and now I, too, have fear, uncertainty, and doubt about my boat. I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the ugly duckling appearance of my boat, about the complete travesty of the total ruination of my boat's lines from the afterthought of the bolted-on Whaler Drive, about the loss of all seakeeping ability brought on with the obsolete and outdated Whaler Drive, and about the ignominy of having a only a single engine on a Whaler Drive--a cheap installation I am told, and about the perpetual shame of pretending I have a larger boat than I really do.