ThomasRasmussen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 62
I'm pretty sure you want the inner sidewall to be even with the lip of the pan.Struggling to find out what to do with rear ride pads for my Smokin Joe. Mocked up a cardboard shoe, but does it look right? The more I search and read, the more confused I get regarding this hull and all it's configurations.
When the boats shifted to turbine engines or, in the case of some of the piston boats, the bulnose being moved back, the CG shifted aft since the engine, exhaust and gearbox were all moved further back in or behind the engine bay. Shoes were added, as you surmised, to help lift the rear at low speeds and, as it turned out, in the turns and rough water. From what I've been told, the shoes were never intended to hold the boat up at racing speeds, hence their shallow depth. This is illustrated by the rear of the 0706 Miss Madison. The Madison/Homestreet Bank has air traps that are 4" deep from the bottom break to the rear of the shoes. The shoe runners themselves extend down an additional inch, making a total depth of 5". When compared to the the depth of the prop, where the center of the shaft has to be at least 8.5" below the bottom of the boat so the prop blades will clear the hull, means the prop, the primary lifting device at the rear of the boat, is centered at least 3.5" below the shoes, meaning the shoes should be clear of the water for a majority of the run.Thanks for the pics Phil. I have that first picture, and it seems to have no shoes. And from what I've read this was the first configuration, in the -94 season?
Would no shoes at the rear affect the handling of my boat? I have heard they are there only to help lift the rear out of the water
Could I ask you to elaborate on this?I'm pretty sure you want the inner sidewall to be even with the lip of the pan.Struggling to find out what to do with rear ride pads for my Smokin Joe. Mocked up a cardboard shoe, but does it look right? The more I search and read, the more confused I get regarding this hull and all it's configurations.
Thanks HJ. I've noticed on this picture, as you point out, that the airtrap stops before the shoes start. I'm guessing that bottom break is where the bottom changes angle in about a third boat length from the transom. Sorry for being a noob, but I need to learn the terminology as I go along. There is always a new word that pops up.Okay, I see what's causing your confusion. It all has to do with the airtrap shown in the pictures. Like you, I don't know what year Joe that is but what I do see is that the airtrap itself stops at the bottom break. Unlike many of the boats, this boat doesn't have the full length air trap so any references to said airtrap are going to be problematic.
My thought on this, and others may disagree, is to make the shoe depth the same as the airtrap at the rear of the airtrap. All of the other dimensions you are going to have to get off the plans or guestimate from the pictures. One other thing, I'd use a piece of solid wood below the hull so that if you need to make the shoes shallower, you can just sand them down or, conversely, have a solid surface to add material to build up to the desired depth and angles
Wes is correct on this one. I had a chance a number of years back to have a chat with a former U-10 crew member (forgot his name) who told me that especially during the '94 and '95 seasons the Joe's changed practically every race and also during races. They were laying a serious challenge to Bernie's Bud team and were looking for any edge they could get. We did talk a little about the rear shoes and they ran all kinds of configurations- even with belly pan edge, inside belly pan edge, one deeper than the other, one wider than the other, one longer than the other so don't lose your mind over how they were, just get them so they are close to the pic or pics you are working off of. Take it from someone who's built a few SJ's over the years (still my favorite unlimited).I think those shoes were different at almost every event. i think they help in milling and in rough water as long as you dont have them too close to the strut depth. About a 1/4" difference on a 1/8 scale works pretty good.
Having done the '94, '95 and '96 Joe's stick with the rear shoes.Thanks Don for chiming in.
I'll follow the advice on taking a photo and make it close. I do have a few pictures of the -94 with no shoes, and actually really like the sleek look without shoes. But I'm worried about the performance with no shoes.
Had a look in your galleries and your Joes looks really good. Was wondering how your -96 Joe with no shoes works?
Enter your email address to join: