Great videos
@JetBoatPilot. I'm sure that they'll help others greatly.
I think that the new keel-based hull design is greatly underappreciated, and poorly promoted for what they really do. I agree with the points in the handling video. If I were to characterize the difference between the two systems in terms of high-speed forward motion handling, this is how I would do it.
1. If you combine a sandbuggy and a drifting car, you have the non-keeled hull experience, or in boating terms, you have a big jet ski, which is a blast to drive, and have fun with.
2. The keel-based hull is like driving a formula one car. Yes, it gives more control similar to a prop boat, which some might characterize as boring.
Here's the part that everybody fails to recognize with the keel-based hulls, and in my opinion it is a huge differentiator. Take any non-keel jet boat, and any prop boat at a speed of 50 mph (I say 50 because 48-52 is the wot speed of my AR240), crank the steering full-starboard, or full-port, and see what you get.
My 2015 AR240 gives you safety (nobody has to worry about bouncing out of the boat) and control (I know exactly where my boat is going), as pointed out by many already, and it gives g-forces like a formula one car. What it doesn't give is cavitation, spiking RPMs, injured passengers, and a stern that is bouncing sideways.
Many will characterize the Yamaha keel-based hulls as handling more like a prop, but they deliver much more at wot and sharp turns... something that nobody else can do.
Having owned both Yamaha hull types, maybe
@swatski and
@Julian have an opinion to share from a Yamaha perspective. Also, I'm sure that many of our members who have owned prop boats can agree that cranking a sustained hard turn at 50 mph and not cavitating is unlikely with a prop driven boat.
Yes, in the end, it's a matter of preference, but it's important to recognize that the keel-based hulls are outstanding in a F-1 kind of way.
