I am interested in the hull design remark. What all modern playboats dont have going for them in the speed category is Length. I am sorry to say but there is no such thing as a fast playboat by todays standards. We should of course analyze this in the two realms in which a playboat functions. First off downriver or displacement mode. Here all playboats are limited by their hull length. The speed of a boat in displacement mode is directly proportional to the length of the boat, which in turn is related the surface area in contact with the water and the fluid dynamics associated with the geometry of the design. Simply shorter and wider =slower. Nevertheless, who really cares about how a playboat performs in displacement mode unless you are using it for river running which if I remember correctly is exactly what the guy who started this forum was looking for in the first place. To get back to the subject though how do these boats respond when they begin to plane. To use a comparison commented on earlier lets look at the evolution from the g-force all the way to the crazy 88. The main thing dagger did to get the hull speed out of the crazy 88 was to drastically reduce the rocker in the stern of the boat. this in effect increased the overall surface area of the planeing surface without increasing the width. In fact they were able to decrease the width of the planing surface changing the geometry of the design and get a faster boat. Great idea right, but dont forget there are serious pitfalls to their concept particularly in areas where we dont do a lot of big wave surfing. The first thing I didnt like about the geometry of the hull is that the sitting position is moved back to be centered over the planning surface. This means there is a lot more bow to get under you when playing in a hydraulic rather than on a wave. in addition there is less overall volume in the stern and the reduced rocker means the stern can be grabby or nonexistent in a hole. What this design does allow for though is an aggressive forward posture while surfing, which is particularly good for dynamic wave moves. I still maintain however that the kingpin is a better boat in the features more commonly found in Colorado. Now if I were on south canyon wave I would want the crazy 88, but oddly enough if I were on the m-wave I would want the g-force. Slow is good on that wave. Back to the point though there are several new boats for 2006 the project included which have taken this concept of less stern rocker and applied it. Now, to give credit where credit is due all of these models are descended from the bliss stick rad, which to my knowledge was the first of this design. Dont get me wrong, there are total benefits to this design, hull speed being the most notable one. However, I still think it is a misstatement to call any of these boats fast. Now I do agree with you that some significant changes can be made to increase hull speed. Some of these changes could be retrofitted to the Jackson boats right now, drastically improving their wave performance. Hull deformation while interacting with the wave is very limiting to the performance of the design. Jackson really needs to rethink his hull stiffening system as do all the major manufactures really. I have not seen wave sports but if it is anything like last years it is totally under built as well. I cant say conclusively but I suspect that some of the issues regarding the hull speed of the Jackson boats may be related to this issue. Now as disclaimer I do recognize the project is a different boat from the Jackson or any other boat for that matter. In addition, I will be paddling the pyranha 420, which is a very similar design as well, but I justify it to myself because they have a super stiff hull and light outfitting which really helps the boat performance. Personally I love this new outfitting and you will to (note shameless plug).
P.S. Sorry for the long message but I think we need to be a little more honest with ourselve in the limitations of kayaks. Remember there is not perfect boat diferent designs perform better in certain unique features. Unfortunatley we dont have a one size fits all regarding design and feature type.