Douglas Renfro
27G and I have to buy an outboard motor for another 7G? I think I'll pass, 34G for a single seat watercraft is a bit much.
Great looking toy.
Of course just because it is allowed places no "jetski" is doesn't mean that people need to use any less care, that prop below the water coun make mince meat of swimmers in the playground.
When I first saw it my mind went to cool DIY toys of the 70's and 80's, one was a mini motor cat with a transom mounted 35HP outboard..
This is along a similar vein, with modern higher output motor, and as the craft is longer, the hulls extend aft beyond the (effective) transom, giving the skegs a lot more bight under all power-on manoeuvres.
New Idea, I really liken it to an evolution.. Maybe a revolutionary one, but time will tell..
If the outboard were fitted with a jet shroud, it would be a lot safer, with less bottom strike seriousness. But we can't have everything 9i acknowledge that for top end speed (not its design specs) a prop is more efficient.
Seems perfectly symmetrical from the photos. Am I missing something?
I'm not sure I get it. Personal Watercraft now can hit 80 mph in seconds, turn on a dime (hard enough to throw you off) seat 2 or more, and do it in inches of water. While taking the bumps with your legs... Not sure I would opt for this instead.
I don't think anyone "gets" it. We got over 80 KPH (one on board) in a 14ft deep V Checkmate with 60 HP at the flywheel in the 1970s. This is a tunnel hull (well known old tech) with too much superstructure. Further, with a "centrally located" engine and the driver located ahead, it is nose-heavy and keeps too much hull in the water so low performance. Tunnels are supposed to be air entrapment hulls. Because the deck does not extend completely to the stern, it has no lift. 70HP (prop shaft) should be doing about 110KPH. At over 30 grand, the prof needs to review his economics model.
Hope the Dr. is earning lots with his day job because the day this goes into production his finances are heading south. Watching the video the captain looked to be out of control 80% of the time, not to mention slow! On a scale of 1 to 10 ........ -5
There are no advantages over a Jet-ski and for 27K plus a motor, I would buy a real boat!
It's been done far better 5 decades ago!! And for much less money.
Why so much power as we only needed 25hp to do the same back then, 70's, just before PWC's came out, these were common..
Cypress Gardens Fla used them in their water clown act they did jumps, ski, went over land, etc in, called Flippers IIRC.
At 27 K$, good luck...
Neil Parkinson
I completely agree with most posters- ridiculous money- far more dangerous than a PWC and nowhere near as fast or fun for your cash outlay. and where can it go that a PWC cant? only where environmentalists have banned 2 stroke. Try parking it on a beach and judging by the pedestrian video I am sure flipping it will not be a problem unless it has some extra NCC 1701 technology not mentioned. I suspect the "rave reviews" were elicited in some sort of gratuity method.