|
Low transoms and cockpit drains
I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why
are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
|
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 4:06 pm, hk wrote:
wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. This is really funny. My "low transom" boat has a transom that is 25" at its lowest point, and 36" outside of the motor notch. The 25" measure is the standard for most single engine outboard boats that are not strictly for inshore use. A better question would be, why would those with boats with 25" transoms and itty bitty motor wells think that one a large wave filled that well, the water wouldn't keep coming aboard. The transom cut-out on my boat will allow a hull partially filled with a significant amount of water to drain. Of course, you'd have to see the hull to appreciate its size and height. SW Tom's 20-something Ranger would fit inside my 21' Parker, and, except for the center console, would disappear. Would it be the Size (volume) or height of the drywell that was most important, I'd expect height to be most important. If ones boat is filled by a following sea, will it drain fast enough to keep the next one out? |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 4:06*pm, hk wrote:
wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? *Is it bad design or is there really a reason? *On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. *This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. *I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). *I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. This is really funny. My "low transom" boat has a transom that is 25" at its lowest point, and 36" outside of the motor notch. The 25" measure is the standard for most single engine outboard boats that are not strictly for inshore use. A better question would be, why would those with boats with 25" transoms and itty bitty motor wells think that one a large wave filled that well, the water wouldn't keep coming aboard. The transom cut-out on my boat will allow a hull partially filled with a significant amount of water to drain. Of course, you'd have to see the hull to appreciate its size and height. SW Tom's 20-something Ranger would fit inside my 21' Parker, and, except for the center console, would disappear. Of course! We all know that anything you own, anything you think you own, any dream of a family (Dr. Dr. wife) any thing you think, is FAR superior to anything anybody else has, or thinks. Which by the way, leads me to a point. Remember when you told someone that you'd take an IQ test with them any time? Remember when I said I'd LOVE to take you up on that challenge? Ready?? |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
|
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 4:20 pm, hk wrote:
wrote: On Aug 17, 4:06 pm, hk wrote: wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. This is really funny. My "low transom" boat has a transom that is 25" at its lowest point, and 36" outside of the motor notch. The 25" measure is the standard for most single engine outboard boats that are not strictly for inshore use. A better question would be, why would those with boats with 25" transoms and itty bitty motor wells think that one a large wave filled that well, the water wouldn't keep coming aboard. The transom cut-out on my boat will allow a hull partially filled with a significant amount of water to drain. Of course, you'd have to see the hull to appreciate its size and height. SW Tom's 20-something Ranger would fit inside my 21' Parker, and, except for the center console, would disappear. Would it be the Size (volume) or height of the drywell that was most important, I'd expect height to be most important. If ones boat is filled by a following sea, will it drain fast enough to keep the next one out? Most of the motor wells on smaller outboard boats are not very deep or wide, and will only hold a couple of gallons of water. Worse, they usually are built into a rear seat or storage area of some sort that, once the water goes over it, fills up the boat and prevents it from flowing back out over the transom. Typically, these boats also have very small scuppers. I've been running small outboard boats for more than 50 years, and I mean small, including some with 12" or 15" transoms. Virtually all my boating has been in the ocean, Long Island Sound or, these days, Chesapeake Bay. I have taken waves over the transom over the years, including repeated waves. I survived and so did the boat. The worst I have taken, though have been big waves over the bow that half filled the boat. By gunning the engine, I was able to get most of the water out almost immediately over the transom. Wouldnt a large volume dry well be a problem because it would fill with water and not drain fast enough? In fact, my dry well runs the full width of the transom and I am considering filling the two ends with foam if I take her to Bimini. I did increase the scupper diameter but I think I should have made them even bigger. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 4:45 pm, wrote:
On Aug 17, 4:20 pm, hk wrote: wrote: On Aug 17, 4:06 pm, hk wrote: wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. This is really funny. My "low transom" boat has a transom that is 25" at its lowest point, and 36" outside of the motor notch. The 25" measure is the standard for most single engine outboard boats that are not strictly for inshore use. A better question would be, why would those with boats with 25" transoms and itty bitty motor wells think that one a large wave filled that well, the water wouldn't keep coming aboard. The transom cut-out on my boat will allow a hull partially filled with a significant amount of water to drain. Of course, you'd have to see the hull to appreciate its size and height. SW Tom's 20-something Ranger would fit inside my 21' Parker, and, except for the center console, would disappear. Would it be the Size (volume) or height of the drywell that was most important, I'd expect height to be most important. If ones boat is filled by a following sea, will it drain fast enough to keep the next one out? Most of the motor wells on smaller outboard boats are not very deep or wide, and will only hold a couple of gallons of water. Worse, they usually are built into a rear seat or storage area of some sort that, once the water goes over it, fills up the boat and prevents it from flowing back out over the transom. Typically, these boats also have very small scuppers. I've been running small outboard boats for more than 50 years, and I mean small, including some with 12" or 15" transoms. Virtually all my boating has been in the ocean, Long Island Sound or, these days, Chesapeake Bay. I have taken waves over the transom over the years, including repeated waves. I survived and so did the boat. The worst I have taken, though have been big waves over the bow that half filled the boat. By gunning the engine, I was able to get most of the water out almost immediately over the transom. Wouldnt a large volume dry well be a problem because it would fill with water and not drain fast enough? In fact, my dry well runs the full width of the transom and I am considering filling the two ends with foam if I take her to Bimini. I did increase the scupper diameter but I think I should have made them even bigger. I believe that statistics bear me out when it comes to boats sinking due to waves over the transom. All you have to do is look at BOAT-US statistics. It seems to happen a lot. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 5:00 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:06:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo.http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. I did a little reading about the glue-and-stitch process, and far as I can tell if properly done such boats are as strong or stronger than any other method. Seems to me that the stitch and glue method used to build monocoque hulls can be incorporated with additional framing either during or after the hull construction, and some of pics I've seen of Tolmans seem to show interior framing that probably wasn't in the original specs. How much does your Tolman weigh and have you ever checked gas consumption? If I was a bit younger I would really consider building one. --Vic Mine is a 20' Standard so weighs less than the Jumbo. I remember some controversy when those guys wee building over the severe cut-away transom for use as a dive boat. My 20' seems to weigh very little but I am not really sure. SHe does get pushed around by waves but I cannot compare to anything else except an 8000 lb sailboat. Fuel economy is roughly 4-4.5 mpg with 6 people aboard using a 90 hp 2cycle Yamaha. I used the 90 hp rather than the smaller engine Tolman reccs because I knew I would always have about 5 ppl aboard. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
|
Low transoms and cockpit drains
wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:00 pm, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:06:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I dont want to cause a ruckus on this obviously touchy topic, but why are some boats meant to be used offshore have low transoms? Is it bad design or is there really a reason? On sailboats, so-called "sugar scoop" transoms are popular on some modern boats with the reasoning that it enables the cockpit to drain. This requires a seriously high bridge deck into the cabin and I simply would not trust such a thing offshore. I will admit my sailboat cockpit drains are too small. On the subject of cockpit drains for powerboats, should one put more effort in keeping water out or in draining the cockpit once it is in? Currently, I have no large drain in my Tolman but am installing the largest bilge pump I can find (3500 gph). I also have no decking installed because I want to be able to see my hull and how much water I have accumulated. The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo.http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. I did a little reading about the glue-and-stitch process, and far as I can tell if properly done such boats are as strong or stronger than any other method. Seems to me that the stitch and glue method used to build monocoque hulls can be incorporated with additional framing either during or after the hull construction, and some of pics I've seen of Tolmans seem to show interior framing that probably wasn't in the original specs. How much does your Tolman weigh and have you ever checked gas consumption? If I was a bit younger I would really consider building one. --Vic Mine is a 20' Standard so weighs less than the Jumbo. I remember some controversy when those guys wee building over the severe cut-away transom for use as a dive boat. My 20' seems to weigh very little but I am not really sure. SHe does get pushed around by waves but I cannot compare to anything else except an 8000 lb sailboat. Fuel economy is roughly 4-4.5 mpg with 6 people aboard using a 90 hp 2cycle Yamaha. I used the 90 hp rather than the smaller engine Tolman reccs because I knew I would always have about 5 ppl aboard. You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we be seeing you again." |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:09 -0400, hk wrote:
You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we be seeing you again." Some CS fishermen in 24's go out 20-40 miles, but the day has to be right. I recall reading about one who mingled, much to the surprise of the charters, in "The Canyons." Also heard they used to race Sunfish from Lauderdale to Bimini. Personally, in an open boat I'd go only with a flotilla. On the right day. --Vic |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 5:28 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:09 -0400, hk wrote: You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we be seeing you again." Some CS fishermen in 24's go out 20-40 miles, but the day has to be right. I recall reading about one who mingled, much to the surprise of the charters, in "The Canyons." Also heard they used to race Sunfish from Lauderdale to Bimini. Personally, in an open boat I'd go only with a flotilla. On the right day. --Vic I'll admit, "The things I'd like to do always exceed my abilities". This means I do not do most of what I want to do. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
wrote in message ... I believe that statistics bear me out when it comes to boats sinking due to waves over the transom. All you have to do is look at BOAT-US statistics. It seems to happen a lot. It's not simply an issue of having a "low transom". It's also how the boat naturally drains water taken aboard. Most small boats don't have scuppers. They have small diameter drains, connected via hoses to an outlet somewhere at or below the water line on the transom. I've been in some small CC's that, if one stands near the transom, water will backfill into the boat. despite the silly little ball check valves or rubber flappers that never work. To me, taking a greenie or greenies into a boat from any direction, and then having to empty the boat by relying on powering up enough to quickly remove the water "over" the low transom is a recipe for eventual disaster. A couple of heavy hits in a matter of 10 seconds or so can cause a serious problem. As for taking water on water "over" the low transom (which you then have to get rid of before you take more and eventually swamp), I've seen cases where, in rough conditions, water comes aboard faster than you can possibly get rid of by powering up and hoping it runs out of the boat, over the transom. The silly little drains aren't big enough to get the job done. Eisboch |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:09 -0400, hk wrote: You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we be seeing you again." Some CS fishermen in 24's go out 20-40 miles, but the day has to be right. I recall reading about one who mingled, much to the surprise of the charters, in "The Canyons." Also heard they used to race Sunfish from Lauderdale to Bimini. Personally, in an open boat I'd go only with a flotilla. On the right day. --Vic Yeah, I've done that in small boats, but not by myself. That flotilla should include a hefty ocean-capable boat captained by someone with ocean experience. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 6:18 pm, hk wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:09 -0400, hk wrote: You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we be seeing you again." Some CS fishermen in 24's go out 20-40 miles, but the day has to be right. I recall reading about one who mingled, much to the surprise of the charters, in "The Canyons." Also heard they used to race Sunfish from Lauderdale to Bimini. Personally, in an open boat I'd go only with a flotilla. On the right day. --Vic Yeah, I've done that in small boats, but not by myself. That flotilla should include a hefty ocean-capable boat captained by someone with ocean experience. A friend of mine actually made the longer trip from Ft. Lauderdale to West End (65 miles) on a waverunner. However, to be safe, there were two of them. One of them was a 2 cycle model but neither had sufficient fuel capacity so they carried 5 gal cans but had to devise a way to re-fuel in chop via a long hose fitted to a hand pump on the can. THEN, thy came back the same way. I figger my way is safer. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
|
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:00:13 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo. http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. The big risk is getting caught by a thunder squall in the Gulf Stream and capsized by a breaking wave. It happens to small boats all of the time. Size matters when it comes to capsize resistance, quality of construction matters little. I would not be comfortable doing that trip in anything much under 28 ft. Unless you've been out there in a squall you just can not appreciate the size and power of the waves that are created. The strong currents of the Gulf Stream magnify the effect by causing the waves to become steep, breaking and confused. People and boats are lost all the time. It's almost routine. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:00:13 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo. http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. The big risk is getting caught by a thunder squall in the Gulf Stream and capsized by a breaking wave. It happens to small boats all of the time. Size matters when it comes to capsize resistance, quality of construction matters little. I would not be comfortable doing that trip in anything much under 28 ft. Unless you've been out there in a squall you just can not appreciate the size and power of the waves that are created. The strong currents of the Gulf Stream magnify the effect by causing the waves to become steep, breaking and confused. People and boats are lost all the time. It's almost routine. I have not yet had the Tolman out in a thunderstorm although I have had my 28' sailboat out in them. I will not go out looking for them for the experience. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:00:13 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo. http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. The big risk is getting caught by a thunder squall in the Gulf Stream and capsized by a breaking wave. It happens to small boats all of the time. Size matters when it comes to capsize resistance, quality of construction matters little. I would not be comfortable doing that trip in anything much under 28 ft. Unless you've been out there in a squall you just can not appreciate the size and power of the waves that are created. The strong currents of the Gulf Stream magnify the effect by causing the waves to become steep, breaking and confused. People and boats are lost all the time. It's almost routine. I too think such thunderstorms are the major consideration. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:59:06 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:00:13 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: The Tolmans look to be nice boats. Note the transom on this Jumbo. http://www.fishyfish.com/bobbruce/index.html A simple answer to your questions would be to e-mail these diveboat guys. I'm thinking they take the boat offshore. The big risk is getting caught by a thunder squall in the Gulf Stream and capsized by a breaking wave. It happens to small boats all of the time. Size matters when it comes to capsize resistance, quality of construction matters little. I would not be comfortable doing that trip in anything much under 28 ft. Unless you've been out there in a squall you just can not appreciate the size and power of the waves that are created. The strong currents of the Gulf Stream magnify the effect by causing the waves to become steep, breaking and confused. People and boats are lost all the time. It's almost routine. I'd rather be in a sailboat on that trip. Or even a PWC. Something with positive flotation. A small open boat is for Cuban refugees. --Vic |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:30:13 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:
I'd rather be in a sailboat on that trip. Or even a PWC. Something with positive flotation. A small open boat is for Cuban refugees. --Vic Speaking of Cuban refugees, I was in Florida during one of their exodus's. I saw several of the craft washed up on the beach. One, I remember was made of bent rebar, wrapped in a blue poly tarp, with a few chunks of styrofoam for floatation. Wearing a PFD, I might have considered trying it out in a swimming pool, but in the ocean, no way. Those poor *******s really wanted out. |
Low transoms and cockpit drains
On Aug 17, 6:27*pm, hk wrote:
wrote: On Aug 17, 6:18 pm, hk wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:09 -0400, hk wrote: You're going to go that far offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in a lightweight 20' outboard boat with a 90 hp engine? I thought I was crazy when I went 20 miles offshore of St. Augustine in stout vee-bottom 18-21 foot fiberglass boats with big engines. Quint: "Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage? Cage goes in the water? You go in the water? Shark's in the water, our shark. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com