Anyone know about this superfreak?

[G-Body]

I have wanted another full length swoopy sided superfreak since I first bought mine. Anyway I found one down in Texas and picked it up yesterday. Tem must have had a bunch of different bottom designs because this one is much more superjet like than mine. My original is a 2010 and is has the lowered pump with rocker. I knew from the pics that this 2009 didn`t have rocker, but it also doesn`t have the lowered pump. I have also heard that there were some, or at least 1 swoopy sided freak with a badass bottom, so there must be at least 3 different bottom designs that were used with the swoopy sides?

Anyway the parts pile and hull that I picked up has a lot more trick parts than I expected. At one point it was owned by a guy named Chance in amarillo Tx, but I don`t think he was the original owner as it has a 2009 FL homemade HIN. I knew it had a polaris genesis based 1085 engine with it. It also has a 12 vane 2" setback mag pump, the midshaft bearing was modified to run oil instead of grease. It has a Tem built carbon pole, and also a carbon turnplate. I`m wondering if this thing was setup to be a bouy race boat or just a really well built recreational boat. I can`t tell if it was ever assembled and run with this engine. There`s a whole bunch of custom parts to bolt this engine in, and some of them appear to have been run, but there`s no scuffing on the piston skirts so I don`t think this engine was ever started.

My original plan was to just toss a stock 701 in since these 1085 psi performance engines don`t seem to have a good reputation in the snowmobile world, but after looking over all the parts I kinda feel like I have to try it. Does anyone know the history of this ski? or if it was ever put together and ran with a polaris genesis engine? I bought it off of one of Chances friends son, who really didn`t know much about it. The ski appears to have started out with a metallic blue paint which was lightly painted over with gray paint. By seaching through some old posts I think that @txsuperjetfreak96 or @Yami-Rider may have known Chance or ridden with some of his friends.

 

[Storbeck]

Well that's definitely an interesting ski.

What do you mean by lowered pump?

 

[Pro-pulsion]

I had no idea Polaris had a Genesis twin, the only Genesis watercraft I have ever seen were all triples. But moving along, you might not be able to run that engine anyway given how the carbs are positioned. I just found that engine on the PSI website, it looks like the carbs will sit a long way out, too far out for being used in a pwc hull. A sled I can see because the drive comes out the side and you have the engine compartment length for straight mount carbs, but an inline drive with carbs straight off the side, no upward position mounting to account for limited room...I dunnooo

PSI Engines

 

[G-Body]

@Storbeck on my 2010 superfreak and all of the badass hulls the pump and shoe area are lowered 1" down out the bottom of the hull. The bottom of the motor is almost sitting on the hull since the crank centerline is down 1", but the pump hooks up better that way.
@Pro-pulsion the parts pile has the polaris (octane I`m guessing) intake elbows to put the carbs straight up like a normal ski. It also had a set of novi-tech carbs that were re-mounted further apart to match the wider bore spacing of the polaris twin. I`m sure that I can use this engine, I just am curious if someone recognizes this ski and knows if it was run or if they were in the process of building all the parts to swap it in.

 

[Storbeck]

I'm trying to picture how that would work, a stock pump shoe doesn't have an inch of room for the pump to move down.

 

[G-Body]

I guess it may not be a full inch, but on my other hull the intake opening slants downward from the front to the shoe. You can see a step in there. I don`t have the other ski accessible right now to grab a pic. I pulled this one off the site though http://www.x-h2o.com/attachments/dsc00964-jpg.357770/ you can kinda see the step. The motor in it and my circus almost touches the bottom of the hull. It`s a lot tighter than a factory superjet.

 

[Storbeck]

Are you talking about the hull bottom that is like this? I guess I can kinda see what you mean. I was thinking of that as just a concave in front of the pump tunnel, but it's just semantics on the description.

 

[G-Body]

Yeah it looks about like that.

 

[G-Body]

It's 95% there to bolt it in.

 

[Sanoman]

To answer your question about hull designs on the bottom,Tem was constantly changing hull design almost on a yearly basis.Probably more so on these hulls when he was still at Xscream.He was always thinking ahead.All the freaks l built were just a bit different on the bottom.Hope that answers your question.Even your pole is a different design.
lf you look at my build thread on the last glass hull that l changed the swooped sides,lt has rocker.l just believe he was moving closer towards the badass hull design.

Wondering how many more of these first SF’s are out there?

 

[joeschuit]

This is a 2009 full carbon I picked up last year. Rocker, original length.

 

[McDog]

He sold that as a top deck kit too so it could be a sj bottom half. No time to study pictures right now though.

 

[smoofers]

That looks like the Hull Tem had sitting on the ground behind the Xscream booth at world finals in 2010. I remember having a conversation with him about it and he had just made that new carbon pole. I remember the swoops and the color, and the pole was a bit twisty. Tem had remarked that the next pole iterations would be stiffer. Not a whole lot of info, but just a quick anectodete.

Edit: it could've been 2009 WF... I've slept a lot since then

 

[Sanoman]

This is a 2009 full carbon I picked up last year. Rocker, original length.

Ahh! Another one pops up.

 

[G-Body]

@joeschuit Nice ski, that`s the one that was for sale in Iowa last summer isn`t it? If so I looked into that one when it was for sale and I have a hunch that may have originally been owned by jetmaniac.

I know that Tem was selling the top deck as a conversion, but this ski is a full carbon, it feels like this one is a lighter layup than my 2010 freak.
I expected a lot of variations in rocker and bottom length on these early skis, but I didn`t expect variations in pump height, hull width, and the mounting recess for the nose piece as those seem like fairly indepth mold changes to me. On my 2009 I can fit my finger between the bottom of the midshaft bearing mount and the hull, on the 2010 the lowest ear of the midshaft carrier bearing is basically touching the bottom of the hull, just like on my circus. On the 2009 it looks like there are built in tubbies on the front and the back narrows down to maybe a stock superjet width? On the 2010 which I was originally told has a badass bottom the hull seems to have the tubbies in the front and not really narrow more than half an inch toward the back, but it still is not as wide as my circus at the back so I don`t believe it actually has a true badass bottom. There`s also a lip on the 2010 around the nose piece to keep a wave from getting under it and ripping it off. I`m just surprised there were so many changes to the molds in the short timespan that these were made, as I thought the swoopy sided freaks were really only made in 2009 and 2010. The rocker and length would have been easy enough to change by adding clay/foam/whatever spacers in the mold to reshape it, but making the back wider, lowering the pump, and putting a lip around the front nose piece seem like fairly large changes to the mold to me.

I assume this ski was originally finished in FL as it has a FL HIN and at that time I didn`t think Tem titled the hulls for you. Based on the registration it looks like this ski had a very short running lifespan. The most recent registration was TX and expired in 2013, they seem to follow most states with a 3 year renewal. So I`m guessing someone built and rode the ski in FL for a year or less and sold it to Chance in TX. I just don`t know if he was ever able to get it sorted out with this 1085 motor. Some of the parts specific to swapping this motor into the hull appear to have some use, but the motor seems like it wasn`t fired. I was mostly curious if anyone knew if he had this working and it was worth putting back together, or if it never really performed and I should go with a 701 as I had planned. There`s enough trick custom parts here that I feel someone besides Chance had to hear about this thing when he was building it.

 

[joeschuit]

@G-Body You are correct, it started with jetmaniac and I bought it from the guy in Iowa. I believe I'm the 4th owner. I tried digging up info on these earlier hulls after reading how great the later badass hulls were. I couldn't find anything definitive and figured it had some "badass" blood in it so it was worth trying out. Being my first carbon hull, it makes my waterlogged sn feel like a whale. Also makes any motor I put in it feel twice as big. I can take a look at the midshaft height tomorrow and see what the height is.

 

[G-Body]

Yeah I also went from a waterlogged SN to the swoopy freak and it felt exactly like you said. I was able to take a -5 badass for a ride this year at waverave and it pops up into the air better than my 2010 so there were some improvements with the badass bottom, but these swoopy sided freaks were better than they get credit for. The freaks seem like an excellent all round ski. The full length badasses, and even these swoopy sided hulls can do anything a superjet does but better. I can hold my 2010 WFO for miles and it`s comfortable. Even the circus is fairly comfortable to ride long distance and will ride WFO without tossing me. I have a WDK rip and even though some people can backflip a rip with a stock 701, I can get closer on the circus as I am just more comfortable on it. The finish on the RIP is worlds better as TEM didn`t worry about pinholes and surface imperfections, but I just like the ride of the freaks better.

 

[OtherDonnieGuy]

I had no idea Polaris had a Genesis twin, the only Genesis watercraft I have ever seen were all triples. But moving along, you might not be able to run that engine anyway given how the carbs are positioned. I just found that engine on the PSI website, it looks like the carbs will sit a long way out, too far out for being used in a pwc hull. A sled I can see because the drive comes out the side and you have the engine compartment length for straight mount carbs, but an inline drive with carbs straight off the side, no upward position mounting to account for limited room...I dunnooo

PSI Engines

Sled and watercraft cases are nearly identical. You can use intake manifolds from octane

 

[Storbeck]

It would be super interesting to get a hull guy like Tem to describe the evolution of the hulls, what sort of things he was testing and changing and why, what affect it had on handling or manufacturing or ergonomics or whatever. Probably never happen, totally understandable that they might not want to share that stuff, or put the effort in to tell the story, would definitely be cool to hear about though.

 

[McDog]

He would tell you if you were having a conversation with him. He was testing everything and playing with shapes. I had an old carbon ski he made where the chines were deeper than a superjet. After that ski he decided to start going in the other direction with the chines. His goal was a ski that rode like a surfboard.