Thread: worx sponsons, any good?
05-04-2006, 09:31 PM #1
worx sponsons, any good?
are they just as good as the others, ie riva, r&d, beach house, pro-tec. thanks
05-05-2006, 04:14 PM #2
Worx, Beach House, Riva, etc. sponsons are all very similar - twin slabs of plastic mounted parallel to the side of the boat. This parallel orientation causes hunting left and right on the straights, worse as the speed increases - this phenomenom is why your car's front wheels are toed-in. The deeper the parallel sponsons, the worse the hunting.
When it comes to turning, conventional sponsons offer a very crude oblong fin, only about 1.5 inches deep (limited by the fore-mentioned hunting) as the pivot point, This provides limited traction, and a certain skip and slide when the traction limits are surpassed.
If you want the best handling available, you need Jet Wings. Jet Wings' patented hydrodynamically correct design provides unbelievable cornering, excellent high speed stability, even higher top-end!
Visit http://jetwings.com to get the whole story, or let me know if you have any questions.
05-05-2006, 04:50 PM #3
Good reading. Yeah the worx are pretty close to the protec and beachhouse style. Fernando might have some carbon fiber blades to mount on either riva or r/d backing plates.
05-05-2006, 05:36 PM #4
That's a great article! We're all using what Carl calls parabolic sponsons, with the sponson hanging down like a "skeg", in Carl's terms.
The aspect that Carl didn't cover, which makes a huge difference in handling, is the angle of these "skegs" relative to the side of the boat.
The correct angle for sponsons to have relative to the side of the boat is toed-in, like an arrowhead, or the wake of a boat.
Parallel placement of the sponsons creates handling problems, such as increased drag and side to side instability - the boat will "hunt" back and forth, specially in chop and at high speeds.
Another aspect of the "skeg's" placement which affects handling is camber: If the bottoms of the skegs aren't farther apart than the tops, the boat will resist turning.
Carl mentions that sponsons create drag, an unavoidable factor in increasing control. This is true, but the amount of drag can be minimized by pointing the sponsons in the correct direction - not parallel!
Another problem with conventional sponsons not addressed by Carl is the effect of the outline of the sponson on its ability to provide smooth, controllable turning. Conventional sponsons' long and blocky shape is hardly conducive to smooth turns - the ideal "skeg" outline would be triangular, like a fish's fins, to focus the turn on a single point.
Sponsons that incorporate the above design principles provide unbelievably improved handling.
By the way, Scott at Group K, and Harry, too, as a matter of fact, were extremely skeptical of Jet Wings and my claims about them until after the test - If you have any doubts about the validity of what I'm saying, I would like for you to talk to Scott about the test.
05-05-2006, 05:58 PM #5
you are making a lot of assumptions that all sponsons are attached to all skis the same way, using the same materials and same dimensions. Furthermore, not all hulls are teardrop'd and not all are parallel.
Some hulls NEED sponsons more than others based upon a bunch of things such as hull deadrise, strakes, strake placement, pump placement in relation to strakes, and sponsons, hull shape and keel depth.
I for one, can't wait to hear some unbiased results.
05-06-2006, 12:38 PM #6
I'm merely saying that when sponsons are setup to be parallel to the hull as is the case in the majority of boats, this arrangement will cause hunting side to side - just like your car if the front wheels don't have toe-in. Of course there are many variations in hull design, pump placement, etc., but in no configuration are parallel sponsons advantageous.
As far as getting independent confirmation of my claims for Jet Wings' performance, all you have to do is ask Harry Klemm.
05-06-2006, 12:40 PM #7
By the way, I sent Fernando a set of Jet Wings to try on his boat. He's been very busy, and hasn't got around to installing them yet, but with any luck, we'll all get to see what he thinks about them soon!
05-06-2006, 12:56 PM #8
If you haven't noticed yet, this site is pretty fanatical about performance.
If your boastful claims of 5mph is true, then send myself, or Jerry the owner a private message, and we'll find you an unbiased person on here to do some back/back real world testing.. If Harry wants to come on here and give his version of it, then he is welcome. He is a member and contributor on this board. His silence will speak volumes too.
Do you have a set made for Yamaha GPR's? Do you realize that we are seeing speeds over 80 here??? I've followed your Honda testing on pwctoday, but don't think that the Honda/Tigershark is in the same league with the GPR. We are running 20 mph faster, with much greater turning ability, and NO porpoising, on most setups. This ain't PWCTODAY here. We specialize! You better bring your A-game with the tuners and tweekers here.
If I seem antagonistic, it's because I detest a "hard sell" of any product. Forgive me, but this is how I am.
05-06-2006, 12:59 PM #9Originally Posted by Jerry Rodriguez
05-06-2006, 01:37 PM #10
Hey Guys. I was over at Fercho's recently and had the JetWings in my hand, but unfortunately with all the pre-MugBug prepping, no one has had time to install them and test.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Pistonwash in forum Yamaha Open DiscussionReplies: 7Last Post: 03-07-2006, 03:58 AM
By Pistonwash in forum Sea Doo Open DiscussionReplies: 16Last Post: 03-06-2006, 10:34 PM
By mxl16 in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 0Last Post: 12-06-2005, 09:30 PM
By mxl16 in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 5Last Post: 09-08-2005, 07:54 PM
By Jarrett in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 1Last Post: 06-29-2005, 03:03 PM