Thread: Mystic SHHHHMISTIC.. pffft..

Originally Posted by E.A.

3-5 years ago.

Don't see me as a hater.... see me as somone that always demands FACTS, and not hype.

EA

I think Don Onkins and Keith Eickarts history of engine building, world championships, countless innovations and continuing advances in offshore racing speak for themselves.. I dont see it as "hype", I see it as a chance to prove a new theory..

One of my concerns about this boat is the driveline. They still havent announced what is going to be hanging off the back of the boat.

EDIT: Announced today that the boat will be utilizing steerable arneson surface drives! WOW! Lots of new tech in this ride!

From a physical point of view I can see exactly why they would couple two V8's instead of one monster motor.

There is a point of diminishing return with huge cubes. You have flame travel speed that effects the efficiency of the burn (when you have huge 5"+ bores) need crazy cylinder heads, which use massive pressure valve springs and cams that lift a mile. Beyond all that you're now into the world of high end race parts that aren't always easy to come by etc. Plus those crazy springs, big lift cams, and all that just require more maintenance which is $$$ and potential for broken parts.

Yes this setup might be heavier, and chances are will use more fuel depending on the tune, BUT! You will be making 1500hp and 1600 ft/lbs out of what, 900 cubic inches spread out among 16 more normal size cylinders. I can 100% guarantee this will be a more durable system compared to a blown 6xx cube V8

Coupling could pose some hicups, and personally I would probably look at an offset going to a gearbox of some sort but thats just me with 0 research time into it.

On another note who says you can throw some blowers on all 4 of those motors and really get down to biznis?

I'd personally like to see more of the 16 cyl allison motors with turbos they use in hydroplanes.

Originally Posted by anon

Coupling could pose some hicups, and personally I would probably look at an offset going to a gearbox of some sort but thats just me with 0 research time into it.

They are slightly offset running chainbox couplings between them. Very similar to tractor pull engines. I believe the back of the motor is an arneson chain design also... Good post, by the way.. You know your stuff!

Originally Posted by waterboy222

I figured I had to have a title that would at least stir up some trouble..

Mystic = DREAM BOAT for me..

Thought Id post a few pics and some info of Don Onkins latest project..

a '50 Mystic with (GET THIS!) Lightning Performance Groups V-16 piston power!! 1700 HP per side turning a mild 6100RPM.. Im making a guesstimate here, but Im betting a cold drink on seeing 0ver 1500 ft.lbs. tq..on PUMP GAS!














D I S C U S S !

Just awsome cant wait to hear how it runs

Originally Posted by E.A.

What I do, has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
If I want to talk about something I have done, I will post about it.

To me I need hard facts, and numbers,.... not just marketing hype. Thats all. Just like when a new hull comes out, looks are one thing....but how does it perform..what are the stats on it. Weight, Speed, Drag, Cost... Motors are no different.

In my experience 99% of the failures I have seen with motors usually aren't a parts failure, or because of HP. Its nearly always something simple....... clogged fuel filter, stuck relay, clogged injector, lack of maintnece (fuel soaked oil, for being on the revlimiter) ect ect. So to me ANY motor can suffer the same fate, no matter the power level.

Yes, hooking two motors together might be new(ish) to the boat world, but its been done since the dawn of time. Go to a tractor pull, heck they put 8 motors together. (And most of the time its more of a looks thing, most pullers with 2 motors far outpull the other machines with 3+ motors) But anways......

What would be truly impressive is.....

- Inventing a way to prevent the failure reasons I listed above.

To me thats innovation, and if I had $$$ comming out of my ears right now, thats what I would spend my time working on. Ways to protect, and warn the users, on all motors no matter the HP level.


Think about it like this....

1500hp motor: Weight + Top Speed - Durablity- Fuel Consm = X

1000hp motor: Weight + Top Speed - Durablity- Fuel Consm = X

750+750 Motor (Weight+Weight) + Top Speed - Durablity- Fuel Consm = X

Those are the FACTS that I need.

To me I would have to see the speed difference and true durablity difference, between the bottom two. Sure the higher the HP the ragged edge you ride on pump gas. But honestly, 1000hp on pump gas is childs play and has been for years. No matter the motorsport its in, with the right equipment, tune, and usage. People have proved that you can make over 2,000hp on pump gas. Yes the fuel has its limits, but its been learned that it was MUCH farther then people though, with creative thinking and new technology. People now make over 3,500hp out of standard Big Block Chevys....nobody would have ever thought that possibly just 3-5 years ago.

Don't see me as a hater.... see me as somone that always demands FACTS, and not hype.

EA


PS: Still love the boat, love the concept, just wanna see it make the numbers on the water.

a 1500hp blower motor in a marine environment will have a very short lifespan. the v-16, assuming no coupler issues, will live 5 times longer or more. 800hp n/a engine is a proven turn key package, unlike any 1500hp blower motor. blowers are cool but if you don't want to wrench on them all the time this, assuming no coupler issues, this will be a lot more fun to live with. the marine environment is much harder to make an engine live for any length of time. imagine when you got to the end of a quarter mile run, instead of lifting you kept your foot down for another 20 minutes several times a day & you get the idea.

The one concern that seems to be popping up is the movement of the engines.. If youve ever seen a bilge camera from an offshore run, theres a shockingly high amount of movement. Yes, you can couple them together on the dyno without much issue, but how will that coupling hold up when being dropped 4'-5' out of the air piggybacked to a 13,000# hunk of glass hundreds of times in a day...

But they have a LOT of tractor pull experience behind this setup

Originally Posted by waterboy222

The one concern that seems to be popping up is the movement of the engines.. If youve ever seen a bilge camera from an offshore run, theres a shockingly high amount of movement. Yes, you can couple them together on the dyno without much issue, but how will that coupling hold up when being dropped 4'-5' out of the air piggybacked to a 13,000# hunk of glass hundreds of times in a day...

But they have a LOT of tractor pull experience behind this setup

That was my thought EXACTLY! And rather than fight it which you can't, I personally would look at coupling them at the crashbox with two separate drive shats going into the box etc, but thats all just theoretical pondering on my part as I have no experience in the area.

Curious, what is the maintenance interval on something like a KE's 1500 blower motor? He's one of the guys who built this V16 setup so he must see some major benefit in the huge cube dual motor N/A gig.

Merc 1075's need a teardown at 100 hours, so I can only imagine the monster hp motors are less than that.

Big blower motors sure do look SWEET!

ya, but top end is done at 25 hours. Full teardown at 100.

I imagine a NONBLOWER motor would run 100-150 hours without anything but top end checks. Especially running just shy of the powerband like these are.. I "believe" the motors are fused together. There was talk of them sharing a crank but I think that was disproved.

Originally Posted by waterboy222

ya, but top end is done at 25 hours. Full teardown at 100.

I imagine a NONBLOWER motor would run 100-150 hours without anything but top end checks. Especially running just shy of the powerband like these are.. I "believe" the motors are fused together. There was talk of them sharing a crank but I think that was disproved.

Sharing a crank would be the single most retarded thing I've ever seen!

The torsional twisting, deflection, and then keeping everything aligned between two different blocks to +/- 0.0005 tolerance with a 0.0025 clearance would literally be impossible. Even controlling the harmonics in that situation would be a nightmare.

Some type of coupler between two independent motors is the only way this would ever work, even if it's just a massive spline drive like they use to couple TA and TF clutches to the rear end.

Aren't some of the bigger boats (50' cats) running 4 motors?

These relatively low rpm N/A motors should have no problem going 150 hours on just a top end. Personally I think you could put a very low pressure blower on it, ~5psi, keep the rpm low and not lose any of the longevity. . . if you could manage to leave it alone.