Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:34 pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
From what I can determine, once a boat is on plane, it is primarily
the weight that determines fuel efficiency so a lighter weight boat
should give much better fuel economy.
BUT, as I have found with my Tolman which is very light for her size,
a lightweight boat is easily pushed around by a wave due to less
momentum. So, although you might consider a boat made from new
lightweight composites, would it be as seaworthy as a heavier one?
This is actually a practical consideration for me if I build a Tolman
Jumbo with slightly gretaer deadrise than the design. More deadrise
will make her pound less but will the lightweight make her less
seaworthy than similar heavier boats?
By definition: flats boat. Stay out of the waves....
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Tolman reccomends a 60 hp engine for my 20' Tolman Standard because it
is so light. I went with a 90 hp 2 stroke but its weight plus the 9.9
kicker was enough that I had to place my batteries forward and run 00
gage battery cable (expensive) and I have to be careful to have my
passengers sit forward to balance here well.
So, what if I went with a 125 hp 2 stroke and placed my batteries even
further forward AND incorporated tanks that could be filled with
seawater to give her enough momentum to get through waves (also assume
more deadrise). She could be lightweight for normal conditions but
then heavy enough (by filling the tanks) for wavy conditions.

Don't forget the waterwings.

On Jun 29, 2:59*pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch



wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:34*pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
From what I can determine, once a boat is on plane, it is primarily
the weight that determines fuel efficiency so a lighter weight boat
should give much better fuel economy.
BUT, as I have found with my Tolman which is very light for her size,
a lightweight boat is easily pushed around by a wave due to less
momentum. *So, although you might consider a boat made from new
lightweight composites, would it be as seaworthy as a heavier one?
This is actually a practical consideration for me if I build a Tolman
Jumbo with slightly gretaer deadrise than the design. *More deadrise
will make her pound less but will the lightweight make her less
seaworthy than similar heavier boats?

By definition: flats boat. *Stay out of the waves....
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Tolman reccomends a 60 hp engine for my 20' Tolman Standard because it
is so light. *I went with a 90 hp 2 stroke but its weight plus the 9.9
kicker was enough that I had to place my batteries forward and run 00
gage battery cable (expensive) and I have to be careful to have my
passengers sit forward to balance here well.
So, what if I went with a 125 hp 2 stroke and placed my batteries even
further forward AND incorporated tanks that could be filled with
seawater to give her enough momentum to get through waves (also assume
more deadrise). *She could be lightweight for normal conditions but
then heavy enough (by filling the tanks) for wavy conditions.

I would guess that you would have taken an excellent design, modified
it in a manner that made it less seaworthy, and overpowered and then
considered an even worse alternative.

Doesn't something ring a safety/engineering/usability bell when you
consider that you are more than doubling the recommended HP rating?

However, I'm not familiar with Tolman and I can only guess.....

Seaworthiness can't be distilled to weight per unit volume.....
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Gene, this is purely hypothetical.
I would not make such a radical change without consulting the
designer. I e-mailed him when I went to a heavier engine for my 20'
Tolman and said to simply balance it.

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jun 29, 2:34 pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
From what I can determine, once a boat is on plane, it is primarily
the weight that determines fuel efficiency so a lighter weight boat
should give much better fuel economy.
BUT, as I have found with my Tolman which is very light for her size,
a lightweight boat is easily pushed around by a wave due to less
momentum. So, although you might consider a boat made from new
lightweight composites, would it be as seaworthy as a heavier one?
This is actually a practical consideration for me if I build a Tolman
Jumbo with slightly gretaer deadrise than the design. More deadrise
will make her pound less but will the lightweight make her less
seaworthy than similar heavier boats?
By definition: flats boat. Stay out of the waves....
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm
Tolman reccomends a 60 hp engine for my 20' Tolman Standard because it
is so light. I went with a 90 hp 2 stroke but its weight plus the 9.9
kicker was enough that I had to place my batteries forward and run 00
gage battery cable (expensive) and I have to be careful to have my
passengers sit forward to balance here well.
So, what if I went with a 125 hp 2 stroke and placed my batteries even
further forward AND incorporated tanks that could be filled with
seawater to give her enough momentum to get through waves (also assume
more deadrise). She could be lightweight for normal conditions but
then heavy enough (by filling the tanks) for wavy conditions.

I would guess that you would have taken an excellent design, modified
it in a manner that made it less seaworthy, and overpowered and then
considered an even worse alternative.

Doesn't something ring a safety/engineering/usability bell when you
consider that you are more than doubling the recommended HP rating?

However, I'm not familiar with Tolman and I can only guess.....

Seaworthiness can't be distilled to weight per unit volume.....


Hehehe. You are so much more polite than I am, Gene. To me, Froggy is a
boating disaster waiting to happen.