Saber verses Apache
10-17-2006, 07:56 PM
#21
Registered
Re: Saber verses Apache
Originally Posted by Nauti Kitty
Mike
Are you going to be in Key west in November? If so I will be happy to give you a ride so you have something to compare to whichever apache's you have ridden in. NK
Are you going to be in Key west in November? If so I will be happy to give you a ride so you have something to compare to whichever apache's you have ridden in. NK
NK i really hope you didn't take it offensive....it was meant like that at ALL...Sabers are badass with out a question .....yes i will be in KW ...i would be more then happy to have a ride
Mike
10-19-2006, 08:58 AM
#22
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Michigan
Posts: 1,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Saber verses Apache
Originally Posted by Comanche3Six
Hello Steve
I like that Apache competitive Spirit!
Ed
I like that Apache competitive Spirit!
Ed
Mike No offense taken. everyone gets an opinion, good or bad. I just want to get people more familiar with Saber. I figure a few rides every time I'm out will get people outside the midwest to know our boats better. Apache has always been the standard for rough water boats for me. NK
Platinum Member
10-22-2006, 09:12 AM
#24
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Michigan
Posts: 1,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Saber verses Apache
Originally Posted by Comanche3Six
Parnell
What were the differences with and without the extension boxes on the 41 Saber?
Thanks
Ed
What were the differences with and without the extension boxes on the 41 Saber?
Thanks
Ed
The first two were triples so wicked won went first. They rigged it without a notch, cause Jim wanted all the hull he could have, and no boxes. Because it was light, approx 10k he was worried about the attitude of the boat and he put in a ballast tank. When they ran it they found it could potentially benefit from moving the drives back so they got a set of stelling boxes and tested it again. They picked up 4 miles an hour. The x dimension was too high at this point so they put in spacers and eventually it ran 109.The attitude of the boat improved dramatically and they never used the ballast tank again. It really is an impressive ride.
Mine was next and I went with boxes right from the start. My main attraction to boxes is the ability to change drive heights easier and staying more hooked up in rough water. When we first tested my boat it maxed out at 84 mph. A real turd. After a lot of testing, changing gear ratio's, props, drive heights I got the boat to 102 with 950's. About as fast as this boat is going to go at 11,500-12000 lbs. I am not sure it would help a side by side setup to put on boxes but when Tatonka and Crazy Horse added boxes they didn't pick up any calm water speed but both said the handeling was way more stable and both stayed more hooked up in rough water. To me thats gaining speed were it counts. NK
10-22-2006, 10:59 AM
#25
Re: Saber verses Apache
Originally Posted by Nauti Kitty
Hi Ed
The first two were triples so wicked won went first. They rigged it without a notch, cause Jim wanted all the hull he could have, and no boxes. Because it was light, approx 10k he was worried about the attitude of the boat and he put in a ballast tank. When they ran it they found it could potentially benefit from moving the drives back so they got a set of stelling boxes and tested it again. They picked up 4 miles an hour. The x dimension was too high at this point so they put in spacers and eventually it ran 109.The attitude of the boat improved dramatically and they never used the ballast tank again. It really is an impressive ride.
Mine was next and I went with boxes right from the start. My main attraction to boxes is the ability to change drive heights easier and staying more hooked up in rough water. When we first tested my boat it maxed out at 84 mph. A real turd. After a lot of testing, changing gear ratio's, props, drive heights I got the boat to 102 with 950's. About as fast as this boat is going to go at 11,500-12000 lbs. I am not sure it would help a side by side setup to put on boxes but when Tatonka and Crazy Horse added boxes they didn't pick up any calm water speed but both said the handeling was way more stable and both stayed more hooked up in rough water. To me thats gaining speed were it counts. NK
The first two were triples so wicked won went first. They rigged it without a notch, cause Jim wanted all the hull he could have, and no boxes. Because it was light, approx 10k he was worried about the attitude of the boat and he put in a ballast tank. When they ran it they found it could potentially benefit from moving the drives back so they got a set of stelling boxes and tested it again. They picked up 4 miles an hour. The x dimension was too high at this point so they put in spacers and eventually it ran 109.The attitude of the boat improved dramatically and they never used the ballast tank again. It really is an impressive ride.
Mine was next and I went with boxes right from the start. My main attraction to boxes is the ability to change drive heights easier and staying more hooked up in rough water. When we first tested my boat it maxed out at 84 mph. A real turd. After a lot of testing, changing gear ratio's, props, drive heights I got the boat to 102 with 950's. About as fast as this boat is going to go at 11,500-12000 lbs. I am not sure it would help a side by side setup to put on boxes but when Tatonka and Crazy Horse added boxes they didn't pick up any calm water speed but both said the handeling was way more stable and both stayed more hooked up in rough water. To me thats gaining speed were it counts. NK
Look out...Here comes Allez Vite!!!!
