Smokin Joe rear ride pads/shoes

[ThomasRasmussen]

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.

 

[P THOMAS]

There were various configurations of the rear shoes used get a picture of one and go with that.

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

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

 

[Wesleys Custom Graphics]

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.

 

[Wesleys Custom Graphics]

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.

I'm pretty sure you want the inner sidewall to be even with the lip of the pan.

 

[brad nichols]

Ask Rob Duckering for some pic's of his Joe as it ran well.

Brad

 

[Hydro Junkie]

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

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.

 

[Lennard Cuenco]

after deciding which year I was trying to do, i got a really great photo from Don Ferrette for making the rear shoes

 

[brad nichols]

There you go, you asked for help and got the info and pic. Way to go Don!!

Brad

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

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.

I'm pretty sure you want the inner sidewall to be even with the lip of the pan.

Could I ask you to elaborate on this?

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the info. Could you say something about the needed angle of the shoe ride surface in relation to the bottom (angle of attack)?

I have this picture of the real thing I was trying to copy, but I have no clue what year this was from.

 

[Hydro Junkie]

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

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

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

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.

My Newton 3-view plans is supposedly(so I've read) for a Winston Eagle, with the shoes on the inside of the airtrap. I guess your advice would be the best, and use the angles and dimensions from that, and make them look right for the Joe. The SJ did never have the shoes on the inside, so that would be all wrong I guess.

 

[Duck899]

That last picture with the black bottoms is a display boat, not really a boat either and never intended to be run. The bottom boat in that last pic is the real boat

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

I would never have thought the three boats in that last picture is not the very same....

 

[Lennard Cuenco]

hey Rob....

there is a series of stacked photos just like that circulating, but that boat looks like the display boat....

are these 2 different series of 3 stack photos the same boat?

 

[Don Ferrette]

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.

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).

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

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?

 

[Don Ferrette]

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?

Having done the '94, '95 and '96 Joe's stick with the rear shoes.

The pic you have of the '94 with no shoes, is the bottom of boat yellow or white?

 

[ThomasRasmussen]

Then it's decided, I need shoes

It's a bit hard to tell from the photos, but I think I see some white on the sponsons there. Is that another way of identifying the variations of this boat?