In response to Steve's Demon Hydro

[Tony Castronovo]

When we designed the Demon we had no plans to make a race boat and our intentions were to make a larger than normal hydro that would handle rougher water conditions, and not as likely to over-turn. Of course we wanted performance and I was satisfied if the boat ran 50 MPH for it's intended market.

When we tested and hit 60 MPH on the first outing I was very surprised as I really pushed the limits on a concept without prior testing that turned out to work better than expected. The new concept was an abrupt and very aggressive leading air foil on the bottom of the hull, and then limited compression area, dumping the air just after the front sponsons.

I was very concerned when we were making this because we never tested the theory, and we used a fiberglass hull modified to make the mold plug and from there straight to a mold. This is something you don't really want to do because if it doesn't work you eon't know until you have spent considerable time and money,  but I felt very confident about the concept and went for it. Not everything I have designed worked over the years and some concepts I retired and put into storage for another day on down the road. In this case the concept really worked well.

Another feature we incorporated in the demon has been something I have been doing to hydros since I raced Nitro almost three decades ago. In the late 70's and early 80's it was a well known process to encapsilate the drive shaft tube with thin plywood to create an additional planing surface. You see the rules set fourth by IMPBA the largest and only rule base and body to run under at the time stated that the definition of a hydro was simple, " MORE THAN A SINGLE WETTED SURFACE". This means that even a Cat had to run with the hydros and out-riggers, since they both had multiple wetted surfaces.

As the 80's progressed and so did WHH and gas model boating and we had produced a couple hydros all with this concept to provide a larger rear running pad, or what I called a "foot". Since the multiple wetted surfaces on a conventional hydro consisted of the two forward sponsons and the bottom of the strut blade / prop hub, common sense dictated that the smaller surface at the rear not only had to supply ass-end lift it ad to support it in the turns where the additional load would cause it to compress, lift, compress, lift, causing that normal, "yipe,yipe,yipe" sound in the turns.

In gas boats HP was limited compared to nitro and this meant reduced speeds in the turns. The foot supplied a larger pad or surface to plane on. It's simple if you think about it, consider how difficult it would be to keep a 1,1/4" flat pad from seeking the surface when forced forward. I actually got the idea from looking at a door stop wedge in my office years before, so those of you that I have helped over the years making these, I would always refer to the pad as a door stop wedge to get my point across, long before computers, email, and picture sending. 

Now this went on for years without a hitch and up until I want to say, until only a couple years ago when we released our Classic Thunder, and then the Demon a couple years later. It seems that a few guys started to race these boats and were disqualified, or not permitted because the "foot" is no longer legal. This my friends is a contradiction to the rules on the hydro class, those written more than 40 years ago, and since maybe even changed only in the past couple.

Remember a hydro by definition is" MORE THAN A SINGLE WETTED SURFACE" This means that you can have two, three, four, or more pads and be considered a hydro. Here's another contradiction, a out-rigger which is a hydro in most cases has (4) running pads. Now even if for some unknown reason the rules for a shovel nose, or pickle fork hydro were changed and now the foot is considered illegal because ???????? It becomes just another set-back in gas model boating for progress made and enforced by more than likely other manufacturers that would rather deem the concept illegal rather than copy it, improve on it, adopt it, and produce better running models. Or, that there are people, "racers" in this industry that are so arrogant and dislike WHH or myself to the point to where they would just as soon write-out any new developments, improvements, innovations that could propose a competitive edge. 

You know, as dumb as both reasons sound, and especially the second, I for the life of me can not understand why an industry of a competitive nature would not at least try a new, (well not new), but still new to the sleeper manufactures out there a concept that improves a product. Are we the only competitive industry that write rules around what people, or products we favor, or to be part of the so-called "IN" crowd?

Unlike so many "racers" that sit behind the keyboard with Popeye arms and big mouths I don't mince words, ever. So for anyone out there that is man enough and may have some knowledge or maybe even involved in re-writing long standing rules concerning this issue, please pick up the phone and call me and provide me a solid explanation to "WHY" a running surface can not be on the same plane or higher than the drive dog or prop hub, and fall under the definition of a hydro?

I trust this will get to the eyes of those involved. The word "progress" comes from the prefix, "pro" or forward. The word regress "re" I think was derived from the suffix "tard"

You know how to get me: 863 699-1231 M-F 9:00 - 5;30 Est.

I know all of you on this site are here to enjoy our sport, and of course I can assure you that your success comes far before the competitive sector in my mind, but to tell a 15 year old kid, ( and we all know there are not many of them racing anymore) that he can not race his boat, even though I was told he would defer any possible trophies, is a sin in my mind, and the guys involved really need to grow up or get out!

Tony C.

[Steve & Ryan Lehnert]

Tony, I absolutely love the way you wrote this article. It is precise to the point without pointing any fingers. There are so many rules that are on the books in both I.M.P.B.A. and N.A.M.B.A. that either need to be rewritten or abandoned. After our conversation yesterday, I found myself lying in bed last night trying to compose an article that I'm going to put on Jims RC boat dock page. The main point I'm going to try to make is that RC boating seems to be dying out. I'm not going to get into a long winded article on this page because I think all the people that are on this forum page enjoyed RC boating for the best reason.IT'S JUST PLAIN ------ FUN! I am going to make one comment about people participating in this hobby. Back in 1990 when I joined the Atlanta Model Boaters there would be 30 to 40 people at a club race! Today club races are a thing of the past there may be 5 to 10 people that show up.

I actually love the way you wrote this article