Re: [bolger] Jeff, Sneakeasy photos???
My website has some photos and a building log. I did it
unconventional but the weight is the same.
www.4dw.net/cosailor
Time and cost logs where not kept but I can tell you without
the engine and drive, I have very close to $800.00 in the hull
but it was built with lumber yard materials nothing fancy.
Epoxy and glass on the exterior but none on the inside, house
paint, cheap fittings.
The trailer was about $600.00. To get the entire thing built,
motorized, and traveling to the water it's about $2500.00. My
wife just agreed with me and she's the accountant!
<grin>
Of course just before I launched I splurged on mag wheels for
the trailer. Don't tell the accountant!
Jeff
unconventional but the weight is the same.
www.4dw.net/cosailor
Time and cost logs where not kept but I can tell you without
the engine and drive, I have very close to $800.00 in the hull
but it was built with lumber yard materials nothing fancy.
Epoxy and glass on the exterior but none on the inside, house
paint, cheap fittings.
The trailer was about $600.00. To get the entire thing built,
motorized, and traveling to the water it's about $2500.00. My
wife just agreed with me and she's the accountant!
<grin>
Of course just before I launched I splurged on mag wheels for
the trailer. Don't tell the accountant!
Jeff
Jeff,
I've been off Bolger for a few months and didn't know that you'd
finished yours. Have you posted photos? Or have a website? It appears
that Steve B. has removed his good pictures, as I get a complaint when
I try to view. It would be good if you could do a photo page.
Did you do a time & baterials log? If so, I'd be interested in labor
time and cost to build.
Thaks for the weight. I'd figured that the hull, completely finished
out might be as much as 600lbs. Glad to hear that yours is lighter
than that.
Cheers/Fader
I've been off Bolger for a few months and didn't know that you'd
finished yours. Have you posted photos? Or have a website? It appears
that Steve B. has removed his good pictures, as I get a complaint when
I try to view. It would be good if you could do a photo page.
Did you do a time & baterials log? If so, I'd be interested in labor
time and cost to build.
Thaks for the weight. I'd figured that the hull, completely finished
out might be as much as 600lbs. Glad to hear that yours is lighter
than that.
Cheers/Fader
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
> Having just finished my Sneakeasy a couple months ago I can say
> that the bare hull is around 500 lbs. 4 average size men
> carried it with ease about 10 feet and lifted it onto the
> trailer. With engine and gear I would assume you'd come in
> around 700 lbs. max.
>
> I believe that my towing weight is around 1200 lbs but I built
> my own trailer and tend to over build causing me to drag around
> additional weight in the trailer. My Ford Ranger 4x4 pulls it
> with ease at 75 MPH. Over the continental divide on my way to
> Lake Powell it wasn't that fast but nothing to worry about.
>
> Jeff
> PCB shows Sneakeasy to have a displacement of 1300 lb. = 590Having just finished my Sneakeasy a couple months ago I can say
> Kg. So the weight on a trailer would be something like 400
> kg. Obviously it will depend on how heavy or light you
> build the boat, the weight of the motor etc. The other way
> to do it is just to add up all the
that the bare hull is around 500 lbs. 4 average size men
carried it with ease about 10 feet and lifted it onto the
trailer. With engine and gear I would assume you'd come in
around 700 lbs. max.
I believe that my towing weight is around 1200 lbs but I built
my own trailer and tend to over build causing me to drag around
additional weight in the trailer. My Ford Ranger 4x4 pulls it
with ease at 75 MPH. Over the continental divide on my way to
Lake Powell it wasn't that fast but nothing to worry about.
Jeff
Howard,
thanks for the informative reply. I think the plan displacement might
be the maximum that Sneakeasy is designed to float, so that will be
way over the actual outfitted weight. AAMOF, if you consider 4 adults
as 600 lbs, that might indicate an outfitted weight of 700 lbs, so it
would meet my SWAG pretty well.
As for trailers, I have those and will simply modify the lightest one
I have; all are over requirements.
Cheers/Fader
thanks for the informative reply. I think the plan displacement might
be the maximum that Sneakeasy is designed to float, so that will be
way over the actual outfitted weight. AAMOF, if you consider 4 adults
as 600 lbs, that might indicate an outfitted weight of 700 lbs, so it
would meet my SWAG pretty well.
As for trailers, I have those and will simply modify the lightest one
I have; all are over requirements.
Cheers/Fader
Plywood:
As BS 6566 and BS 1088 are just British Standards for plywood, the
quality will vary according to the source, but should always be at
least up to the minimum requirement of the respective standard. It
shouldn't be too hard to find out the details of each standard
(should be somewhere on the web) and make a decision based on the
standard and inspection of the actual ply you are considering.
If you can provide details about the material you are considering --
thickness, no. of plies, thickness of outer skins, surface finish,
species of timber, country of origin, name of manufacturer etc. --
someone might have specific knowledge about it.
Trailer:
PCB shows Sneakeasy to have a displacement of 1300 lb. = 590 Kg. So
the weight on a trailer would be something like 400 kg. Obviously it
will depend on how heavy or light you build the boat, the weight of
the motor etc. The other way to do it is just to add up all the
weights of all the items that will go into making and outfitting the
boat. A trailer manufacturer should be able to give you a ballpark
figure for the weight of a trailer needed to take a boat weighing
this much. The whole thing will be >800 lb for sure, although if you
are not trailering far it might be feasible to strip the boat i.e.
remove motor etc. and carry the bits in a second trip in the back of
the van.
I think a vehicle's trailer rating is based mainly on the weight of
the tow vehicle. So, although a vehicle might be safe to tow up to
1250 kg or whatever, it might not have much reserve power for
climbing hills etc. Proper trailer brakes help a lot and, in many
jurisdictions, are mandated by law over a certain trailer weight.
Chasing up the links produced by a Google seach on <Sneakeasy
trailer> (without the brackets) will show a few different trailers,
one of them made from a modified Snowmobile trailer.
Howard
As BS 6566 and BS 1088 are just British Standards for plywood, the
quality will vary according to the source, but should always be at
least up to the minimum requirement of the respective standard. It
shouldn't be too hard to find out the details of each standard
(should be somewhere on the web) and make a decision based on the
standard and inspection of the actual ply you are considering.
If you can provide details about the material you are considering --
thickness, no. of plies, thickness of outer skins, surface finish,
species of timber, country of origin, name of manufacturer etc. --
someone might have specific knowledge about it.
Trailer:
PCB shows Sneakeasy to have a displacement of 1300 lb. = 590 Kg. So
the weight on a trailer would be something like 400 kg. Obviously it
will depend on how heavy or light you build the boat, the weight of
the motor etc. The other way to do it is just to add up all the
weights of all the items that will go into making and outfitting the
boat. A trailer manufacturer should be able to give you a ballpark
figure for the weight of a trailer needed to take a boat weighing
this much. The whole thing will be >800 lb for sure, although if you
are not trailering far it might be feasible to strip the boat i.e.
remove motor etc. and carry the bits in a second trip in the back of
the van.
I think a vehicle's trailer rating is based mainly on the weight of
the tow vehicle. So, although a vehicle might be safe to tow up to
1250 kg or whatever, it might not have much reserve power for
climbing hills etc. Proper trailer brakes help a lot and, in many
jurisdictions, are mandated by law over a certain trailer weight.
Chasing up the links produced by a Google seach on <Sneakeasy
trailer> (without the brackets) will show a few different trailers,
one of them made from a modified Snowmobile trailer.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "john_fader" <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
>
> Anyone used BS 6566 plywood? It is much cheaper than BS 1088 and
> appears to have the same glue specification. Comments from those
who
> have actually used BS 6566 (or are experts on plywood) are eagerly
> sought.
>
> What is the weight of a Sneakeasy fully equipped??? Steve B. told
me
> long ago, but I've forgotten. You might mention the motor weight in
> case it differs a lot from mine, and tell something about the
trailer
> construction. Those two things can vary a *lot*.
>
> I'm trying to figure if a Sneakeasy could reasonably be pulled by
my
> '75 VW Westfalia Campmobile. Dang thing has a rated towing wt. of
> 1250 kG, but I'd never attempt such a pull. If the trailer and
> Sneakeasy are around 800 lbs or maybe a bit more, I'd say it would
be safe.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "john_fader" <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
Howdy,
I'll toss in my 1cent worth. We are currently buiding a Micheal Storer
designed Goat Island Skiff out of 6mm okoume BS6566. It's a 15.5' open
flattie skiff for sail, oars, or putt. I wish I could dredge up the
particulars for you on differences between 6566 & 1088, but I've
forgotten them. At the time we decided, I did the research, made my
decision, and promptly forgot the details. The gist of it was that the
1088 was a "premium" product, while the 6566 was only "very good".
I've done this rant before, but I'll try to summarize it here. When
making these kind of decisions, I envision a graph with cost on the
vertical (x) axis and quality on the horizontal (y) axis. Generally
speaking, at the cheap end of any product a small increase in cost
results in a larger increase in quality. At the very expensive end of
the spectrum, the opposite is true - a large increase in expenditure
results in a very small increase in quality. So we have a graphed line
that starts out at the lower left and rises in a gently accelerating
curve to the right. At some point, the acceletating rise results in a
transition from horizontal to vertical. At that point, each dollar
spent, results in an increasingly small upgrade in quality.
I call the area of the graph where the line transitions from
horizontal to vertical the Value Range. That is generally where I want
to be. And, it is where I generally recommend people to aim for in
their own decision-making. For me, this issue arises commonly when
working with people to design a kitchen, furniture, mantel, gazebo,
conference table, or some other sort of custom woodworking project.
But I find the model works well in making all kinds of everyday
decisions.
So, 6566 vs. 1088? I would characterize 6566 as falling into the upper
end of the Value Range, and therefore as a good value. The 1088 I
would regard as a luxury.
Hope that's more helpful than stulifying.
Cheers & Beers,
David Graybeal
Arbor Woodworks
Portland, OR.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: don't repeat yourself -
it's repetitious, redundant, and repetative" - anon.
>********************************
> Anyone used BS 6566 plywood? It is much cheaper than BS 1088 and
> appears to have the same glue specification. Comments from those who
> have actually used BS 6566 (or are experts on plywood) are eagerly
> sought.
>
> Cheers/The Fader
Howdy,
I'll toss in my 1cent worth. We are currently buiding a Micheal Storer
designed Goat Island Skiff out of 6mm okoume BS6566. It's a 15.5' open
flattie skiff for sail, oars, or putt. I wish I could dredge up the
particulars for you on differences between 6566 & 1088, but I've
forgotten them. At the time we decided, I did the research, made my
decision, and promptly forgot the details. The gist of it was that the
1088 was a "premium" product, while the 6566 was only "very good".
I've done this rant before, but I'll try to summarize it here. When
making these kind of decisions, I envision a graph with cost on the
vertical (x) axis and quality on the horizontal (y) axis. Generally
speaking, at the cheap end of any product a small increase in cost
results in a larger increase in quality. At the very expensive end of
the spectrum, the opposite is true - a large increase in expenditure
results in a very small increase in quality. So we have a graphed line
that starts out at the lower left and rises in a gently accelerating
curve to the right. At some point, the acceletating rise results in a
transition from horizontal to vertical. At that point, each dollar
spent, results in an increasingly small upgrade in quality.
I call the area of the graph where the line transitions from
horizontal to vertical the Value Range. That is generally where I want
to be. And, it is where I generally recommend people to aim for in
their own decision-making. For me, this issue arises commonly when
working with people to design a kitchen, furniture, mantel, gazebo,
conference table, or some other sort of custom woodworking project.
But I find the model works well in making all kinds of everyday
decisions.
So, 6566 vs. 1088? I would characterize 6566 as falling into the upper
end of the Value Range, and therefore as a good value. The 1088 I
would regard as a luxury.
Hope that's more helpful than stulifying.
Cheers & Beers,
David Graybeal
Arbor Woodworks
Portland, OR.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: don't repeat yourself -
it's repetitious, redundant, and repetative" - anon.
John,
There is a discussion that just occurred over in the dwforum
(Duckworks Magazine Forum; another Yahoo! group). Over there it was
about Aquatek versus Hydrotek which are meranti plywoods to bs6566
and bs1088 standards. To summarize, the response was that bs6566 was
very good with no voids and nice outside plys. I think the main
difference was that the inner layer in bs6566 could be spliced.
Okoume bs1088 will be lighter than the meranti versions.
Wayne
There is a discussion that just occurred over in the dwforum
(Duckworks Magazine Forum; another Yahoo! group). Over there it was
about Aquatek versus Hydrotek which are meranti plywoods to bs6566
and bs1088 standards. To summarize, the response was that bs6566 was
very good with no voids and nice outside plys. I think the main
difference was that the inner layer in bs6566 could be spliced.
Okoume bs1088 will be lighter than the meranti versions.
Wayne
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "john_fader" <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
>
> Anyone used BS 6566 plywood? It is much cheaper than BS 1088 and
> appears to have the same glue specification. Comments from those
who
> have actually used BS 6566 (or are experts on plywood) are eagerly
> sought.
>
>
Anyone used BS 6566 plywood? It is much cheaper than BS 1088 and
appears to have the same glue specification. Comments from those who
have actually used BS 6566 (or are experts on plywood) are eagerly
sought.
What is the weight of a Sneakeasy fully equipped??? Steve B. told me
long ago, but I've forgotten. You might mention the motor weight in
case it differs a lot from mine, and tell something about the trailer
construction. Those two things can vary a *lot*.
I'm trying to figure if a Sneakeasy could reasonably be pulled by my
'75 VW Westfalia Campmobile. Dang thing has a rated ttowing wt. of
1250 kG, but I'd never attempt such a pull. If the trailer and
Sneakeasy are around 800 lbs or maybe a bit more, I'd say it would be
safe.
Cheers/The Fader
appears to have the same glue specification. Comments from those who
have actually used BS 6566 (or are experts on plywood) are eagerly
sought.
What is the weight of a Sneakeasy fully equipped??? Steve B. told me
long ago, but I've forgotten. You might mention the motor weight in
case it differs a lot from mine, and tell something about the trailer
construction. Those two things can vary a *lot*.
I'm trying to figure if a Sneakeasy could reasonably be pulled by my
'75 VW Westfalia Campmobile. Dang thing has a rated ttowing wt. of
1250 kG, but I'd never attempt such a pull. If the trailer and
Sneakeasy are around 800 lbs or maybe a bit more, I'd say it would be
safe.
Cheers/The Fader