# 21 Majek RFL vs 21 Shallowsport



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

in yalls opinion which is the better all around boat. of course rigged with a trp.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

no comparison, majek wins


----------



## lawrence (Dec 6, 2005)

*all around boat*

In my opinion, neither. 21ft trans cat is your best choice. It is themost shallow running and excellent in ruff water. I didnt believe it until I bought it myself and took it out to Rockport. It is always windy there, 90% of our trips are dry and the shallow test was during Nov. Dec. time when the tide was out about litraly 2ft. The shallow flats had water ripling on the sandbars that had about 3-4inches of water covering them. We went right over them. O'yeah, there was 4 of us on the boat.


----------



## Too Tall (May 21, 2004)

Both are fine boats. The Majek may run a little shallower. The Shallowsport may have a smoother ride. My suggestion is to hop in each one and take 'em for a spin. See what they can and can't do 1st hand and purchase the one that best fits yours needs/wants. Good luck with the search.


----------



## salty_waders (Feb 13, 2006)

Both will run shallower than they will float, literally. Therefore it comes down to ride (including dryness), factory warranty, customer service, etc. In big chop you will sometimes get wet no matter what anyone says. A Shallow Sport will ride a little smoother because of the hull design. (I have fished out of both boats) The Shallow Sport has a LIFETIME hull warranty. They have been in business since the 50's and the customer service is top-notch. Hope this helps your decision. PS - I have a Shallow Sport, feel free to contact me with any questions.


----------



## skinnyme (May 24, 2004)

Between those two choices I'd take the Majek everytime


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

A good friend of mine had a 21 Shallow Sport and now has a 21 Majek RFL. He likes the RFL better. The RFL is shallower and faster but the Shallow Sport is very shallow and definitely rides better.


----------



## Cru (May 24, 2004)

I am looking forward to seeing the new Majek 21 RFL that is coming out.


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

I am not in the market for one. me and my roommate are in an argument over it and we figured this would settle it. Just in case, how much do they cost. im sure its at least 25.


----------



## LA Cox (Oct 19, 2004)

Cru...what are they changing on the new 21 RFL?? 

I'm a Majek 21' RFL owner...so my opinion is going to be a bit biased. Unless something changes at the Majek factory I will never own anything but an RFL. I've got nothing to say bad about the boat. It is rough riding in chop, but there are ways to overcome that problem. I've been on a few SS's, and really don't have anything bad to say about them either. Solid boat, great warranty, and available options. It's kinda like a Dodge vs Ford vs Chevy deal. 

Late,
Cox


----------



## Junebug (May 24, 2004)

Ditto LA.

I've been on both, and have enjoyed them both. I think I enjoyed the RFL more mainly due to the "back country slide," very cool boat. I do think the SS wins in the "looks" department. The SS with raised deck and lots of alum is downrite sexy. I'd also say they run close to as shallow as the other. You can run 99.9999999999999% of coastal waters without running out of water.


----------



## "Reddrum" (Dec 15, 2005)

*Shallow Sport*

This is a no win argument since you can't measure the difference between the two. Both will run in 3" of water over mud and leave nothing but washed out mud in their wake. I own a 20 SS with a TRP and would never trade it for an RFL.

If I had to choose (and I did) I'd go with the SS all day long - no wood construction (Majeks have A LOT), better warranty, best fit/finish in the business, higher resale value, more options, smoother ride and like Junebug said - when rigged South Texas style they're dead sexy!

I think the SS might get up a little shallower (rigged similarly) than the RFL only because a 21 SS is about 400 lbs lighter than a 21 RFL.

BTW since Yamaha no longer makes the TRP neither of these boats will be as skinny as earlier models.

I agree - definitely like Chevy vs Ford vs Dodge.


----------



## specag01 (May 12, 2005)

*Hey Cactus*

Cactus,

Your a dumbass....J/K Since you dont run either of these boats whats your point.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

specag01 said:


> Cactus,
> 
> Your a dumbass....J/K Since you dont run either of these boats whats your point.


If you read you may answer your own question, or are you the roommate? LOL


Cactus said:


> I am not in the market for one. me and my roommate are in an argument over it and we figured this would settle it. Just in case, how much do they cost. im sure its at least 25.


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

Gotta be the roomate...LOL


----------



## j survant (Apr 6, 2006)

I have not had much experience with Shallow Sports. Majek are very shallow boats. The RFL is a very wet boat that will beat you up in open bays if you need to cross them. As far as being an "all around boat", in my opinion the Majek is not the best. One of the best shallow design out there though. I like the Explorer 22' Attack-a-Flat. I don't know of a shallower boat with a TRP and it handles exceptionally well in open water. It is much closer to an all around boat then the others in my opinion. Again, only an opinion. Good luck.

-J


----------



## Turpis Piscator (Jan 24, 2006)

*Flats Cat*

Where would a comparably powered 21' Flats Cat fit in to a comparison to both of these?


----------



## Sand Eel (Aug 17, 2005)

What about the Trans Cat? I hear it has the best ride of them all and very similar if not exact shallow water performance compared to all. My next boat will be a SS, RFL or Trans Cat, 21ft. Leaning towards the Cat assuming it has the best ride.

I run a 19ft Explorer not big enough for me and my boys to take any partners, also run 24ft El Pescadore, too big, too much gas but you can drink a cup of coffee in it running from Seadrift to Panther in 20 plus SE wind. It is for sale.


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

Spec,
I am not trying to make a point. im just seein what yall thought.i said me and my rommate are having an argument over which is better. i think the rfl is because i could careless bout staying dry or a smooth ride. i care about running askinny as possible and getting up in as skinny as possible, but still have the versatility to cross a rough bay or head to the surf. thank you 
Cactus


----------



## tight line (Aug 28, 2005)

I Run A Majekrfl,yep They Are Rough In A Big Chopy,just
Put Yur Spurs On And Go For It!tls Jay


----------



## HillCountry-Ford-Kawasaki (Feb 15, 2005)

*tell your roomate...*

The RFL is the king of shallow. Period. Especially with the TRP strapped on the back.


----------



## pevotva (Sep 7, 2005)

The RFL runs so shallow the trailer is optional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Solid Action (May 21, 2004)

I can promise you that the SS handles the chop a hell of a lot better than the RFL. Both boats run extremely skinny, so the choice is obvious....SS.


----------



## Capt. Forrest (Jan 5, 2005)

hey SOLID ACTION

care to play follow the leader??????????j/k bro

let's hit the water soon. 

besides, your SS would run skinnier is you would take out that big 325 gallon blue shrimp toter. LOL

I'll call you tomorrow.

Capt. Forrest


----------



## specag01 (May 12, 2005)

*Hey Cactus*

Hey Catcus,

Good game last night!


----------



## Solid Action (May 21, 2004)

Capt. Forrest said:


> hey SOLID ACTION
> 
> care to play follow the leader??????????j/k bro
> 
> ...


Trav,

Say when! I'll just move the bait well up front, LOL.


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

spec,
quit stalking me. i know im your hero and you want to be just like me but i mean come on man


----------



## TopwaterAg (Jul 19, 2005)

Cactus,

Your posts trouble me.....you strike me as such an amateur in regards to boating. I know a guy(gafftop44) that could probably help you in this area. I have found him to be quite helpful in matters involving skinny boats. As for SpecAg...I know of no finer sportsman and conservationist. You should show some respect to true experts of the fishing world.


----------



## Centex fisher (Apr 25, 2006)

What is the advantage of the TRP?

Which boat is more affordable?


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Centex fisher said:


> What is the advantage of the TRP?
> 
> Which boat is more affordable?


The TRP gives a wicked holes-shot. The only problem is that it has been discontinued. It is my understanding that the Majek RFL is more affordable.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

SS may handle the chop better then my RFL...but can it take a pathfinder? i think not


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

*Topwaterag*

1st off i taught gaftop EVERYTHING he knows about fishing. 2nd Congratulations on your new ss, but the people have spoken, the majek is superior. your still in the minor leagues meat. Call me when you want to go fish in rockport on one of my scooters. thanks


----------



## gaftop44 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Cadillac*

300x......we are talking about ss and rfl's not pathfinders.......SepAg and TopwaterAg congrats on the new ss......you bought the cadillac of shallow water boats......see you in poc on the 13th


----------



## polecat (Jan 21, 2005)

Who said anything about a pathfinder, both sre good shallow water boats, but a pathfinder is not very shallow.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

polecat said:


> but a pathfinder is not very shallow.


good observation. like i said, ill be there with my RFL


----------



## Walkin on Water (Apr 3, 2006)

If your looking for a boat that runs shallow, well built, and last a lifetime, no other boat on the Texas coast measures up to a Majek - PERIOD!
Larry Teel


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

I thought this was SS v. Majek, now we get a broad statement like "no other boat measures up to a Majek - PERIOD!" I take exception to that and am willing to bet you haven't been on a Tran Cat.


----------



## pevotva (Sep 7, 2005)

I guess you'll fiqure out I am pro Majek but has anyone ever noticed that it is always a "how does X brand compare to the Majek RFL 21/TRP" controversy. How much shallower can you get than a flat bottom with a good tunnel design and good width for flotation? If you say cattamaran don't you give up floatation. Every square inch you take out of the bottom is that much deeper the thing sits.


----------



## salty_waders (Feb 13, 2006)

The reason most people are saying the RFL is better is because they own one, or they have a friend that owns one. The reason there is more Majek owners than SS owners is because they a lot cheaper. SS are expensive, but you get what you pay for: the best boat money can buy. The SS holds it value like you wouldnt believe.


----------



## Lagunabob (May 19, 2005)

*Rfl*

seems like I see a lot of RFL's for sale.


----------



## Chance (Jun 10, 2004)

*Finally!*

Pevotva is right about cat hulls but it goes for tunnels too - it's called displacement. The greater the flat surface area of your boat hull pressing down on the water surface the more evenly the water is displaced under the weight of the hull.

In other words on boats of the same weight and dimensions a cat will draft more than flat bottomed hull because more of the weight of the boat is pressing down (gravity) on 2 pontoons rather than being evenly distributed across the entire under surface of the hull.

Like when you get stuck in mud. You sink your tires but you stop when the bottom of the truck rests on top of the mud - that's displacement.

While cats run smoother and some will run skinny they need more water to get back up. That's what sets the SS and RFL's out from everyone else.


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

I would tend to agree with you on the physics of a cat v. a flat bottomed hull, however the proof is in the pudding. I'd be willing to run my Tran Cat (including getting up) any where a 21 foot SS or RFL is willing to go and then some. The truth about displacement will be opposite once the cat is on plane, as less of the hull will have contact with the water resulting in less drag and a shallower run.


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

A tran cat is much heavier (about 450 lbs) than the 21 majek and the 21 ss. This is alot of weight when youre talkin bout shallow runnin boats and imo they are not the same caliber.


----------



## Aggieholic (Mar 30, 2005)

*1 Vote for SS*

Majek may give you an extra .5" water, but SS gives you a private SS only tourney. I second what the other guy said, "You see a lot of Majeks for sale." I'm not knocking Majeks. I think they are one of the best you can buy behind a SS.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

dennis_99 said:


> The truth about displacement will be opposite once the cat is on plane, as less of the hull will have contact with the water resulting in less drag and a shallower run.


are you 100% positive? i would love to prove that wrong


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

What the Tran Cat can do with that extra weight is leave you behind when you think its too rough to head out. Catus, you've obviously never been on a Cat before. I would be willing to be that the Tran can run just as shallow if not shallower than any of these two boats. Before I purchased I had been on them all, and the Tran impressed me the most for best all around boat with the same, if not better, shallow running capabilities as the SS. Majeck still has a long way to go to catch up to SS.


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

Look im not knocking the cat, and no i have never ridden on one, but i know that weight is a huge deal when talking about hole shots and draft. not mention poling capabilities. Yes i am sure the tran takes rough water better and keeps you drier than a majek, but there is no way it runs or gets up shallower than majek or ss.


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

I don't think any 21' boat out there can go shallower running or getting up than a RFL. I personally wouldn't have one as it is too rough for me. I have no need to run that shallow; however, if it comes down purely to which one will go shallower, I think to beat a RFL/TRP combo, you would have to have an airboat. Just to be fair, I've never been on TranCat or UltraCat but have been on RFL, Explorer AttackaFlat, 21' SS, and FlatsCat. All are ridculously shallow but the RFL will cross dry ground and turn around in a few inches of water - unbelievable until you ride with someone crazy enough to show you what it will do.


With that said, I personally would buy the SS or TransCat first as they are both very shallow and ride much better.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

dennis99, hey if you think you can keep up in 3" or less, lets go.


----------



## Gorda Fisher (Aug 19, 2005)

*Boy yall are some thread jackers. lol*



300X said:


> dennis99, hey if you think you can keep up in 3" or less, lets go.


I bet he can keep with ya pretty easy though.


----------



## rbritt (Jan 20, 2005)

*don't kid yourself*

The RFL is faster than alot of people think in fairly smooth water. What kind of mph are you getting out ouour RFL's. What are the Trans getting and the SS? Curious.


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

My buddies RFL with a TRP will touch 50-52 in the right conditions. I've been told by a guy that has a TransCat with TRP that he runs 48. The only 21' SS I've been on had an old 200 2 stroke suzuki and would run right at 50. I've been told by a dealer that a 21' SS and TRP will only run around 40.


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

I have a Honda 4 Stroke 200 on my 21' Tran Cat. Fully loaded with 5 guys, three coolers and gear, we were right at 45mph. I don't have a clue how fast it will get up with just a couple of guys and minimal gear. Speed isn't my main priority, but it sure it nice to cut down rides from 30 minutes to just 10-15. I will agree that due to the weight it will limit my hole shot and poling capabilities, so SS prob has the upper hand in that regard, but I know I'll be able to get to any spot I need to in a very smooth/dry ride even in rough conditions and get out of there as well. I'm still very shallow and the boat has a great hole shot. At the end of the day though, Tran is a great boat, as are the SS and RFL, its just personal preference. And 300X, if you think you can get up in 3", lets go...


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

dennis_99 said:


> And 300X, if you think you can get up in 3", lets go...


maybe you should read my post a little more carefully. "keep up" and "get up" are two totally different subjects. i highly doubt you can get on plane in 3", much less any boat couldnt


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

My bad 300X, I misread and thought the same, that nobody else could get up in 3" or less. Now as far as running in it, I've been there and done that, and going back to my original post, I can run anywhere a RFL or SS can, and then some.


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

I think you ought to try it and see what the outcome is....

If I were buying a new boat right now, I think it would be a TransCat, but to say a TransCat with a 4 stroke will follow a RFL with a TRP is a little crazy. I'm sure my buddy would be glad to take you up on the challenge with his RFL/TRP, and i'll put some money on it.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

can your boat slide across 30 yards of marsh, and not stop in the middle>?


----------



## Chance (Jun 10, 2004)

*Tall tales*



dennis_99 said:


> I can run anywhere a RFL or SS can, and then some.


Now I've heard it all.


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

I guess you guys are right. So the next time you're out and see a bunch of Cats fishing the ICW you'll know its a result of reading this thread...


----------



## Chance (Jun 10, 2004)

Dennis they're great boats and I've fished from 2 different ones with TRP's on the back but not even those guys with those engines claim they'll run and get up as skinny as a Shallow Sport or Majek.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Ok, I will jump back in here. Anyone want me to follow them in 3" with my tran I am game, been there and done that. The Tran will float neck and neck with the Majek. WHY? Because the Tran is wider, MUCH wider. The specs say 94" on beam on the majek but due to hhull configuration it is not a rectangle so to speak so not all of that is in the water, and the floor is 84" which is closer to the actual planing width of the hull if I remember my measurements right. I know my tran Tournament loaded full of gas will bottom out about 6 1/2- 7" and it will get up in less than that. I was beached while drifting and since it was a mud bottom I wanted to show my father in law what it would do and I spun up. I really wish I would have measured it but it was not in a whole lot of water.

For all those that do not believe these statements they can bring their buts to the shallow water shoot out I am planning and find out. Majek makes a fine boat as does SS, but if your looking for the ultimate package, smoother in rough water, runs just as shallow, gets up just as shallow, and is much more efficient, then go test ride a Tran Cat. It I can schedule it, I would be willing to take you. 

Larry Teel, majek pro staff, runs the Extreme now, so yes they are fast, and will run pretty shallow, but I do not consider those true flats boats. Construction wise, Majek still uses wood, SS uses some space age foam and good Resin just like Tran. This stuff is much stronger than wood, won't break and is considered the best material money can buy. That is why Tran and SS are more expensive. The foam soaks up resin and if vacuum bagged the excess is sucked out and no air exists therefore maximizing the resin/weight ratio.

So, I would urge you to ride in a Tran Cat before making your Decision. AS for speed, my boat with a 200 vmax and 17-18p props will get right in at 53-54 depending on wind. I am probably giving up 5 m/hr with my elevated console. So, do the math. True it might take more motor to run this boat faster, but I have never met anyone that owned a majek that didn't wish they had more HP. Why, because the transom's are not designed to take any more, at least not reliably, and Johnny Majek doesn't want the liability. Friend with an 18 and 115 burns as much if not more than I do while I cruise down to the landcut. So throw out the fuel savings statements.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Chance:

I DO!!!!! I have gotten up in an area where a buddy with an 18 pushed, well pulled, his boat out of because he was convinced he could not get up. Yes it was the same day, and about 5 minutes apart so no tide fluctuation. LIke there is much in the 9 mile hole anyhow!


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

Good posts Stew and I agree with you 100%.
To Chance, I'd say that this thread was as to a 21 SS v. 21 RFL, so yes its a bold statement that I make, but I think its a fair assessment. I was out running this past weekend where no other boat ventured except for maybe a couple of scooters. I don't know how Tran does it, but the end result is a shallow running boat with an extremely smooth ride. I guess a post on page 1 or 2 of this thread may sum it up best when they say this deal is just like Ford v. Chevy v. Dodge. At the end of the day its personal preference and budget that dictates.


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

*When is this shallow water shootout???*

I think that is an awesome idea if you can find the right spot for it and have airboats or something to help when one gets stuck.

I respect your opinions and have asked you lots of questions in the past, but I just have to disagree with you on this one. The only way to know for sure will be to do the contest you are talking about. Like I've said and will say again, if I were buying a new boat right now, it would most likely be a TransCat and definitely would not be a RFL. I think the TransCats are awesome boats; however, there is no way they can go shallower than a 21 RFL with a TRP as it will cross dry ground (I've been in one doing this myself). I do believe you can run in 3", but the RFL can too. It is possible they will do the same making it a tie but no way you go shallower than dry ground. As far as stopping and getting up, I can't say for sure as I've not tried it myself in either boat, but i'd say if one has a TRP and one doesn't, the TRP will most likely win.

Make sure and let me know the info of the shootout as I would like to take part and watch!


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Yea, I know. This boat will run with water filling in on the propmarks, wet dry ground, but don't shut down. they will both do it but keep the momentum and prop biting or youll be rather stuck in either. No matter how u look at it, any of the boats mentioned will run shallow than anyone wants to be running. 
Test them all and buy what works best for u.

I think the right spot is Pt. Mansfield due to remoteness and close access to miles of sand flats.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

OH, a trp has great holeshot, but if you have the right prop a single propped motor will get up just as good.


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

OH, a trp has great holeshot, but if you have the right prop a single propped motor will get up just as good.
__________________
Doubtfull.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

I have proof, guy had a trp, blew it up, got a 225 vmax. Thoroughly disappointed about holeshot and Tran's old prop guy worked him one up and it gets up shallower and hits harder than his trp, and is well over 10 m/hr faster.


----------



## pevotva (Sep 7, 2005)

Tran lists his hull weight at 1650 lbs, Majek 1150. A 225 vs 150 is another 75 lbs of weight disadvantage. 

Youve got a boat that weighs 575 lbs, 50% of total weight more than another with a single prop that will get up equally as well as a twin prop?

Flotation = weight/surface area, I guess the Tran has 50% more surface area


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

The whole idea behind the TRP was reduced torque. Granted they get a little advantage over a stock unmodified prop due to surface area, but try to think like an engineer and imagine the turbulence being produced before the second prop. Turbulence is one of the main contributors to reduction of the efficiency of a prop. 

Yes, I feel quite positive I can get up anywhere that boat with a trp can. I ran my friends Majek for years so I think I understand how they operate. The planing surface is bigger on the Tran, and no it does not incrementally have to increase to combat the extra weight. Another benefit are the aft chamfered edges which really aid in spinning this boat up. They act as planers and add aft lift.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

im just going by my personal exprience with the 16' baby cat. i was suprised with the whole shot it had with a 90 hp, and mine, with a 60 hp. i had 3 people in my scooter, he had 2, and he could barely get up in 8" of water. the fact of the matter is, we both ran just as shallow in mud, but when it came to sand, he ran aground in about 4-5" of water with his jack plate up all the way, and i circled around and went by him over and over. 

im not doubting the 21 trans cat. im sure it runs extremely shallow, im going to take stew's word for it...

its just some people need to comment less when they say "mine runs shallower then both, plus more" i mean, you have no proof? i never said my boat will run shallower then any trans cat. i just wanted to challenge it and see...


----------



## dennis_99 (Feb 27, 2006)

Thanks Stew for breaking it down. As for quoting incorrectly, 300X, all I said was that I could run anywhere a SS or RFL can and then some. The proof is that its field tested through myself along with several others that I've spoken to who own a Tran Cat, that went a long way in helping me make my decision to buy a Tran over a SS. To tell you the truth I didn't even consider an RFL because of the flat bottom and how rough it is. And going back to the original thread, my post was meant for a 21 SS or RFL. I'd be a fool to think that I could keep up (or get up) with scooters or boats out of this particular class.


----------



## Graydog328 (Mar 8, 2006)

*skinny*

I want in the contest. My RFL with a single prop 150 Yamaha will whip any tran with a TRP........


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Plain and simple, without reading into every post here, law of physics will prove the majek rfl is the skinniest *prop *boat in suggest 20'-21' length but not enough difference to even consider worrying about. How's that? LOL


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

hehehe, this will be a fun test.... How do u define "WHIP"?


----------



## Graydog328 (Mar 8, 2006)

He'll be whipped  when he's done draging his boat off the flats. I'm Joking one of my good friends runs a transcat and it is a nice riding boat. We have defiantly tapped into the never ending debate.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

have u guys ever played follow the leader...


----------



## brickman (Aug 18, 2005)

does anyone know the cost of a new 21 cat ready to fish compared to a 21 RFL ready to fish?


----------



## fito1411 (Jul 8, 2004)

O.K. guys ive watched long enough..i have owned an 18 Shallowsport without sides with and a pro v 150.Also an 18 with sides with a 115 evinrude, An 18 with sides,raised console and a TRP.and i currently own the new 20' without sides raised console and a 150 Yamaha single prop...Of all the boats shallowsport makes the 21' with sides that you all speak of takes the most water to get up...but it rides the best....of ALL the boats shallowsport makes the 20' without sides drafts the least and gets up the skinniest.The difference betwene the 21' and the 20' is alot!!!The 21' doesnt even come close to the 20' in shallow water performance.There are suttle differences in the two..The 21 with sides has a built in "hook" kinda like a fiberglass trim tab.A lot of boats have them like Bluewaves and El Pescadores..The 20' does not have them because the boxes on the back are bigger..I dont think Majek RFL can out perform my boat.If it can,the difference would be imesurable.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

stew1tx said:


> have u guys ever played follow the leader...


ya, the cat couldnt keep up


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

LOL, u liar hehehhehehehe.


----------



## TimOub007 (Jun 10, 2005)

Okay, I've tried to stay out of these _whose is shallower_ threads, but when you said "think like an engineer" you literally asked for my comments.

Due to physics, this is a false statement:



stew1tx said:


> The Tran will float neck and neck with the Majek. WHY? Because the Tran is wider, MUCH wider. The specs say 94" on beam on the majek but due to hhull configuration it is not a rectangle so to speak so not all of that is in the water, and the floor is 84" which is closer to the actual planing width of the hull if I remember my measurements right.


You are talking about the beam of your boat, but that is not what matters when you discuss static (at rest) draft. You need to discuss the wetted surface. Here is some theory about catamaran and pocket drive design that I took from here: http://boatplans-online.com/studyplans/XF20_study.htm This is a boat building website where I purchased the plans for my current project. The designer, Jacques, is a naval architech and knows more about hull design than most of us.

There are different ways to design a flats boat with minimal draft. Some catamarans claim to have less draft than monohulls but that is simply not possible. ​
Let's demonstrate by comparing the geometry of two simple hulls.
The sketch below shows the waterplane area of a monohull compared to a typical catamaran hull, each simple rectangles but the comparison works just as well for more sophisticated shapes. ​







You can see that the catamaran hull as less foot print than the monohull: at equal draft, the cat displaces only half the water of the mono hull ​






​and therefore, at equal boat weight will have two times more draft. Even if the tunnel is narrower, the cat hull will always need more draft but there is more: a cat structure is more complicated and the hull area is larger, therefore heavier. 
A cat type tunnel will always have more draft because it has less waterplane area and a heavier structure.​That is for static draft but what happens when running?
There again the monohull is superior.
The water between the hulls of the cat is turbulent. All kind of steps and other contraptions installed between the hulls have been tried to reduce that problem but despite the claims of some cat manufacturers, the prop runs in aerated water and is not as efficient. The prop has to be lowered to run in "hard" water but this increases draft.​







​This is where the tunnel is clearly superior. Not only does the water coming out of the tunnel rise higher than along the hull sides but it is compressed by the tunnel shape: the prop will cavitate much less than between the cat hulls.
The correct name for our type of tunnel is pocket drive. The theory is well known: the forward part of the tunnel is higher than the exit and the aerated water is compressed before it reaches the prop. At the transom, the water makes a hump and that is the level of the cavitation plate at planing speeds. For the hole shot, the prop must be deeper but once the pocket drive is "primed" the engine can rise on a jack plate allowing the boat to run in 4 or 5" of water.
(Some of the XF20 builders report running in as little as 2-1/2"!).​A pocket drive is not perfect: there will always be a turbulence at the mouth of the tunnel. There is simply no way around it. At planing speeds, the water going through the pocket has to cover a longer distance than the water running under the straight parts of the bottom. This will create cavitation but we can reduce its consequences with the shape of the tunnel. The tunnel is not a plain box: it is tapered in profile and all corners have large radii fillets. It is heavily reinforced to withstand the pressure variations. 
The pioneer of this type of tunnel is Uffa Fox: he designed the first ones for the British Navy boats during W.W.II. Today, we know what the ideal shapes and proportions are and that is how the XF20 pocket drive was calculated.
​
Then you had to go and make this unfounded statement:



stew1tx said:


> Construction wise, Majek still uses wood, SS uses some space age foam and good Resin just like Tran. This stuff is much stronger than wood, won't break and is considered the best material money can buy. That is why Tran and SS are more expensive. The foam soaks up resin and if vacuum bagged the excess is sucked out and no air exists therefore maximizing the resin/weight ratio.


First of all, buying the most expensive materials does not necessarily make the boat better. Second, closed cell foam does not "soak up resin" even in vacuum infusion. Remember this is closed cell foam so that it won't soak up water if it is so exposed. Third, saying that foam is "much stronger" (even stronger at all) is a misconception. The foam board does not have near the puncture resistance that wood has. Therefore, more layers of glass (or in some boats kevlar) have to be put on to equal the _strength_ of a wood core. This is also why a relatively small boat built with a complete foam core will weigh more than a boat built with a wooden core. As can be seen your Tran weighs 40-50% more than a wooden cored boat. Wood is not bad as long as it is used properly and completely sealed in epoxy or another resin. According to Jacques and other designers, the breakover point of weight to strength is somewhere in the 25 foot range for a vee hull boat. It would be an even greater length for a low-sided boat.

I have nothing against the Tran, and I think they are excellent boats that do what they are designed for. I am simply doing as you asked, and telling you how it is as an engineer. If any of you have built your own boat and studied composite construction on the college level, please feel free to correct me.

Of course, I do realize that real world experiences can sway peoples opinion about the laws of physics.

Take care,
Tim


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Excellent post, Tim.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

*KUDOS TO YOU TIM , COWABUNGA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!bLING bLING bLING .. *


----------



## fito1411 (Jul 8, 2004)

Where did Stew go?


----------



## Graydog328 (Mar 8, 2006)

Well written TIM


----------



## Cactus (Jan 16, 2006)

Thats what i was tryin to say


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

"Where did Stew go?"

Buehler? Buehler?

Great post.


----------



## Chance (Jun 10, 2004)

*Tim*

As Jim Rome would say...."Rack em"


----------



## cruss (Aug 31, 2005)

I think you have to throw out the cat vs mono theme hear as the trancat is really a slotted tunnel hull boat. The two hulls are too close together to make this a traditional catamaran hull so your physics on displacement and performance would not be applicable here. As far as performance goes look at the number of racing hulls that are of similar cat or slotted tunnel hull design that dominate from inshore and lake to offshore performance.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

cruss said:


> As far as performance goes look at the number of racing hulls that are of similar cat or slotted tunnel hull design that dominate from inshore and lake to offshore performance.


what are you talking about? performance cats? those are for speed, not shallow water...cats dominate off shore racing, but for the top-alcohol drag boats that run the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds or less, both hull designs are neck and neck

way off topic bud, good try thou


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Excellent post Tim, now let me clear up a few things. You assume, all things being equal that these boats are the same width, and have the same length planing surface. Remember Majeks have tunnels, fairly good sized tunnels and thus reduce the planing surface a good bit. Now, that being said, you also assume that you are comparing apples to apples, your not. Their engineering is toward the type of hulls they are making, or at least everything I have read leads me to that conclusion. 

So, a cat hull, when comparing apples to apples, will require more depth to draft, but in this case the boats are not apples to apples. The tran is bigger, and it has to be to make up a larger planing surface. What we should do is figure out the square footage of each boats waterplane area and some actual weights and then do some figuring, that would help us all out. So that statement about cats not being able to draft shallow would assume they would have a smaller waterplane area. Most of your cats that are designed for Texas flats fishing, will be wider, much wider in fact than a flatbottom. Why? Because the flatbottoms do not need to be that wide. So, take the 84" beam of a majek, subtract out the tunnel area, then look at the 102" wide area of the cat and the tunnel is relatively the same width and depth.

I think the assumption that the water is aerated is a general statement. I do not think the water around my prop has any more aeration than a tunnel has. Don't believe me have someone drive your boat and look in front of your lower unit, it has a good bit so I think this is a moot point. There is some definite art to the tunnel design of the modern cats, even tunnel boats for that matter. Pocket drive has become accepted as the smaller tunnels such as those seen on the small tunneled older blue waves etc... Not the bigger tunnels of majeks etc... Some of them would classify them as such but that is like any buzzword, everyone has their own.

I never said it was closed cell foam, but it very well could be. I know this stuff is stronger laterally and bends versus breaking. On decks, the wood is exposed on a good bit of the boats being built. It is marine grade plywood so it will last some time but there becomes a point at which it will become brittle/weak. Also, that wood will soak up water over time making the boat heavier. I would really like to weigh some boats to see their finished weights. I am not going to rag on any boats, I just want a better boat for me as a consumer.

My comment on materials was general, but what I was getting at is that a superior product can weigh less. Look at the composite stuff used in those super lightweight boats. That is where spending more money on products comes in, and like I said I never said it was closed cell foam, but it might be. Either way the puncture resistance has a minimal playing factor in my eyes because the blows are not punctures usually, they are tears which means their force is different, focused more on the X plane than the Y plane. That is where builders make their own decisions on hull strength. I would probe you to ask Jimmie Dooms his opinions on this material, although that boat has some wood in it I think. I am not knocking anyone so please do not take it as that, especially no disrespect to the naval architect, but general design ideas will only get you so far with the boats Texas manufacturers are producing. 

I am defintely spending too much time on this hehehe, think I will just agree to disagree.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

LOL @ 300x


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

im not dogging on tran at all, ive seen the pics on their website....they dont draft much at all...

i put the pathfinder to the ultimate test this morning...running into the bayou at pepper cove, ran in, crab traps almost 1/2 was out of the water, 6" up on the jack plate, mud rooster tail, and still managed out....im guessing 10-12" of water...not bad for a V boat.


----------



## Capt. John Havens (May 28, 2004)

Stew1tx, can you post some pictures of the bottom of your boat?


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Not bad at all. Yea let me stick one up Senior H.


----------



## pevotva (Sep 7, 2005)

*width?*

"Most of your cats that are designed for Texas flats fishing, will be wider, much wider in fact than a flatbottom. Why? Because the flatbottoms do not need to be that wide. So, take the 84" beam of a majek, subtract out the tunnel area, then look at the 102" wide area of the cat and the tunnel is relatively the same width and depth "

dont know where the figures come from but a 21' Majek has a 94" beam and the 21 Transcat has a 96" beam if 12" x 8' = 96".

I personally don't think that cats ride as smooth as everyone makes out and that flatbottoms ride as bad a everyone makes out. Like I have said in earlier posts, just because you own a particular boat doesnt mean you have stock in the company or invented the thing, it is just something you have. Hell if there was one king-kong dingaling, peanut butter and jelly, crackerjack boat out there and just one we would ALL drive it.


----------



## bk005 (Feb 23, 2005)

pevotva said:


> "Most of your cats that are designed for Texas flats fishing, will be wider, much wider in fact than a flatbottom. Why? Because the flatbottoms do not need to be that wide. So, take the 84" beam of a majek, subtract out the tunnel area, then look at the 102" wide area of the cat and the tunnel is relatively the same width and depth "
> 
> dont know where the figures come from but a 21' Majek has a 94" beam and the 21 Transcat has a 96" beam if 12" x 8' = 96".
> 
> I personally don't think that cats ride as smooth as everyone makes out and that flatbottoms ride as bad a everyone makes out. Like I have said in earlier posts, just because you own a particular boat doesnt mean you have stock in the company or invented the thing, it is just something you have. Hell if there was one king-kong dingaling, peanut butter and jelly, crackerjack boat out there and just one we would ALL drive it.


I wasnt going to post in here, but please.... Ive owned both RFL and Transcat.

If you think people are overstating the fact that that flatties ride rough....come on. My kidney's know better.

No question on the ride between the flatty and cat. I will put money on that one.

My good bud has a 21RFL we bash each others boats all the time, and everytime we go out, we both have a new appreciation for each others ride.

Each has its place,

My favorite thing to say about a TransCat. I doesnt do any one thing Outstanding, but it does everything great.

Have Fun


----------



## Capt. Forrest (Jan 5, 2005)

hey 300X,

clean out your pm box, it says it is over loaded.

I need to get in touch with you on some things.

thanks in advance,
Capt. Forrest


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

Capt. Forrest said:


> hey 300X,
> 
> clean out your pm box, it says it is over loaded.
> 
> ...


alright, its clean, hope this is a good talk....


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Pev- Take a look at the majek hull next time u are around one, they are narrower in the front than the rear, also lay a tape across the bottom and tell me what you come up with. I have had all kinds of boats and riddin in others for a long time, a majek included, so I am not trying to sell the company, I have just ridden in about everything and tell you this boat is not overstated. Nor is the fact that Majeks will rattle your teeth. Those figures for the tran are not up to date, I thought it was an 8' beam too, but I was told they are 8'6" and I will measure mine, across the bottom not on the gunwales.

If your ride in a cat was not smooth, you need to find another person to ride with because they really are nice after you get it figured out and not all cats ride the same. The tran seems to ride a little smoother than the FC and Shoalwater as I have found. I did not blindly buy my boat or get hooked up with Tran. I found what I thought was the ultimate boat based on my criteria and then pursued Tran.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

300, that is some brave runnin' and takes knowing your boat to capt it like that brother....


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

stew1tx said:


> 300, that is some brave runnin' and takes knowing your boat to capt it like that brother....


heck man, you gotta learn sometime...nothing like the scooter thou, lol


----------



## anton (Aug 2, 2005)

majek


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

anton said:


> majek


lol, your going to get people started again...


----------



## TimOub007 (Jun 10, 2005)

stew1tx said:


> Excellent post Tim, now let me clear up a few things.


You're not clearing things up, at least not for the rest of the board.

Here is a picture that I took at the Houston boat show of a 21 RFL transom:









I, as well as anyone else that doesn't own one of these boats, am going by the manufacturers posted specs on their websites and their literature. So the 21 RFL has a beam of 94" and a floor width of 85". The tunnel is about 4-6 feet long (if someone has the exact measurement please post it). So that is 1/4 or so of the length. The 21 TranCat has a beam of 96" and a floor width of something less than that. It really doesn't matter what the floor width of a cat is since there is no center section down the entire length of the hull. In other words, the tunnel is full length - 21 feet. So to say that the TC is bigger is a bold statement for a whopping 2 inches.



stew1tx said:


> What we should do is figure out the square footage of each boats waterplane area and some actual weights and then do some figuring, that would help us all out.


I agree, and if you do that you will understand that you are still wrong. While the rear of the catamarans are flat on the bottom, the front half of them is not. That is why at TC rides better than a RFL. Having some vee to the front of the catamarans puts them at a disadvantage from a wetted surface point of view (just like a vee hull versus a flat bottom).



stew1tx said:


> So that statement about cats not being able to draft shallow would assume they would have a smaller waterplane area.


By definition, a cat has to have a smaller wetted surface, at rest, than an equally sized flatbottom or tunnel boat. And yes, these are equally sized.



stew1tx said:


> I think the assumption that the water is aerated is a general statement.


No, if you take a course in fluid dynamics then you'd understand this statement. That is the reason that a tunnel is not simply a box.

It is closed cell foam. No builder would use open cell foam as it would absorb water over time.



stew1tx said:


> I know this stuff is stronger laterally and bends versus breaking.


Have you tested the foam that is used in your boat? I know that Jacques has tested different laminations on different thicknesses of both foam and wood. The data is available on his website. Until you can provide your own data, you don't know that it is stronger, period.

The fact that you can see some wood under the decks does not necessarily mean that it is exposed. If a builder is not sealing wood used in any boat then shame on them. Properly sealed, wood is better than foam on this size boat. You have fully bought into the marketing hype that "no-wood" construction automatically makes a boat better. That is nothing but marketing and advertising, and was started by the bass boat guys 15+ years ago. This was when the builders were not sealing the wood properly and it was an issue. Also, everytime an owner drilled a hole in the transom to mount a transducer or whatever and did not seal it, water was introduced to any wood.

The reason the damage you often see is not a puncture is that the fiberglass lamination did its job. That is why Jimmie's boat held up so well when he hit that object in the bay. UC built a tough boat and it shows. If you hit an object while under way, it is going to try to puncture the hull. That is why the boat bumps upwards when you hit something. If your motion was completely in the X plane then you wouldn't have any (zero) boat in the water. I think that even you'll admit that you have a few inches of boat in the water when under way.

I will agree that some are spending way too much time trying to prove which boat will run the most shallow. What I won't do it disagree with the laws of physics and fluid dynamics.

I'm done with this topic. I hope that I've educated at least a few folks.

Take care,
Tim

On edit:
At least one person asked what an RFL costs rigged. Here is another pic I took at the show.


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

ive been edumicated...haha


----------



## Capt. Forrest (Jan 5, 2005)

well, i generally try and stay away from "hot topics" such as this, but I guess time has gotten to me, and I also feel that I've let this thread get too stinkin long for me not to have posted in it.

I currently run a 21 RFL. Have friends with the trans, and SS's.

What it all boils down to is--- Do you like what you run?????

I do know that the 21 RFL will not float in 2" of water.

I have gotten it up on plane in water that the hull was dragging in. And that was just a straight, jump out of the hole get up---- not a turn and burn type shoot. (estimated at 6" and yes, mud bottom)

It was runs scary skinny while up, has a great low end plane speed.

Rough???? Not really. That's is why I have trim tabs, but I also have a throttle. Only makes sense to run slower in the big chop and not try and just blast through 3 footers head on. (besides, if you can run that skinny, it may be longer to get home, but just hug a shoreline and go)

All in all, if you like what you have, don't second guess your decision.

If you are in the market for a shallow water boat, then jump in all of them, put them through "tests" and let your own personal opinion of how they performed influence your decision.

Just thought I would add another post so the count can get higher. LOL

Capt. Forrest

(hoping to make it to Mansfield for Brian's shallow water shootout, bringing the lawn chairs, and a 21 RFL/TRP)


----------



## 300X (Aug 21, 2005)

ima riding with capt. forrest! lol


----------



## Priority1 (Aug 21, 2005)

*cats or tunnels ?*

Maybe we are all referring to these boats incorrectly as cats ?

The way Jimmy explained it to me recently (Tuesday) during a test drive, was that these flats boats that have "cat" in their names are really tunnel hulls. Catamarans like the offshore versions or sail boats, have two separate hulls that you can see through (between) when they are running. All the cat boats in this discussion have a completely "filled" tunnel. I would guess that the area of the hull between the tunnel is providing lift/buoyancy what ever; as well.

thoughts ???


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

I've been edumicated some too. But I am operating off what several boat builders are telling me about the new composite materials. True, I am operating under some hearsay but everything seems very logical to me. I have had wood core boats, I have seen wood core boats and have seen a good bit of them gettng decks replaced, etc.. from weakened wood. You would be surprised at how many boats you could walk up to and look at that have exposed wood, and it all looks unsealed to me. I read a story from an insurance company that totalled out a boat made from composite materials for some reason. It was a big boat and the boat yard was going to lift it with a crane and drop it rather than disassembling it. Would be easier to pick up the pieces than cut it up with a chain saw. The agent went back out there after the guy (owner) called him because they had lifted it about 30' in the air and dropped it and nothing broke, nothing even cracked that they could tell. Sure it chipped I am sure it had to chip. So it became a test to break it. Tried for some time lifting it and dropping it, they ended up having to cut it up as it would not break. 

I agree with the statement about a tunnel not being a box, but I assure you some builders did not start out with it that way. If you ever ride in one, go back and look at the water before it hits the motor, it has a good bit of turbulance, same goes for my boat but it is not compressing much air into water as evidenced by my own two eyes. I get where your coming from but I have witnessed both with my eyes and I don't care what a formula says, I have seen it. 

I had a boat builder once tell me that the reason you will see the tunnels the way they are is because of the strength of the angles. Fiberglass is weaker at a 90 degree angle that is why they put a 45degree angle there in an area that will see a lot of stress. And based on a lot of tunnel design I have seen he is right about the 45 degree thing. A majek tapers toward the front, the tran does not. In another words the boat gets narrower thus reducing planing surface. As for the Tran's front sponsons, the v is really small and has a low deadrise and the v does not extend below the lateral line of the bottom of the hull. I think I am saying that right. If you were to take a board and lay it on the bottom from aft to fore, the v would not lift the board any off the flat surface in the back, or the majority of the planing surface. And, they do not consume half of the bottom just so you know. They are just the front and they have less to do with the comparative ride than you think.

Again I am operating on what manufacturers of materials, boat makers and other industry guys have told me about the composite materials and the strength they possess. I guess the same could be said for you since you told me I don't have any knowledge or figures, until you can derive your own figures and data you don't have any. Maybe Jaques only builds wood hulls, maybe that is what sells his product so he has generated data to support that. I can tell you one thing, if composites were not better, why would more boat manufacturers than ever be using them now? Boat manufacturers that once used wood. It isn't cheaper, they don't want to have to charge more for a boat necessarily but want to put out a superior product. Something to ponder my friends. Like I said I agree to disagree. I have seen things with my own 2 eyes that contradict some theories evidently so I either know more than you think I know or have seen enough to know the difference.

Let's shake hands and continue this conversation over a beer. I would love to learn whatever you have to teach. I think we would have some great conversations.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

I think there is a big misconception about cats and the boats we use here. You can not just generalize they they have a big deadrise, big v's in the front and running half the length of the hull like offshore big offshore cats.

OH, if you get a majek decked out with a trp and gps, power pole, alum trailer, and the whole nine, you are lucky to get out with 32-33k spent. Know someone that almost bought one recently but backed out as it came up higher than he thought after everything.


----------



## Catn' Around (May 21, 2004)

Capt. Forrest said:


> hey SOLID ACTION
> 
> care to play follow the leader??????????j/k bro
> 
> ...


How else will he catch his Gaftop if he doesn't have croakers.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Everyone is trying to win star in some category ROFL


----------



## Landum Releaseum (May 2, 2006)

*My 2 Cents*

Owned A Shallow Sport For 10 Ys With Two Different 150s There Is No Comparison When It Comes To Getting Up Shallow And Staying There. Have Had A Few Run In's With Skinny Water Steped Out To Find The Water Didnt Cover My Shoe Solls Needless To Say That Was A Long Push. 'check Out The Number Of Guides That Use Ss In Port Mansfield They See How Many Use Those **** Rfl Majek Cant Stand Those. But The Tunnel V's I Am Impressed By There Ride.


----------



## Centex fisher (Apr 25, 2006)

What are y'alls thoughts on Dargel's, Blue Wave's and Pathfinders????


----------



## Lagunabob (May 19, 2005)

*Flats Cat*

what do yall think about the 19' FlatsCat in terms of skinny water performance and ride in chop and just in general. I'm 99% sure I'm about to buy one...


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

I think Flatoutfish's feat of running on dry land solves the debate of who runs the skinniest. I have never seen a boat run that shallow for so long, I saw it not just the pics.


----------



## SpecklFinAddict (Dec 19, 2004)

deke said:


> I think Flatoutfish's feat of running on dry land solves the debate of who runs the skinniest. I have never seen a boat run that shallow for so long, I saw it not just the pics.


Thank you...Thank you! And that was over HARD sand! Follow this Brandon, weren't no crab traps to buzz here... LOL


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

u look kind stuck bro lol. been there.....


----------



## GFB Champeen (Mar 23, 2006)

Ding...ding...ding. Thats all she wrote. Its a knockout!



TimOub007 said:


> You're not clearing things up, at least not for the rest of the board.
> 
> Here is a picture that I took at the Houston boat show of a 21 RFL transom:
> 
> ...


----------



## Red (Feb 21, 2005)

deke said:


> I think Flatoutfish's feat of running on dry land solves the debate of who runs the skinniest. I have never seen a boat run that shallow for so long, I saw it not just the pics.


LMAO, that was funny. Question...are those seagulls or vultures hovering around flatout's boat? 

Red


----------

