Re: building cost of a Tenessee and trialer
> The allowable stress Moment for a 4 inch C x 5.4 is 4000lbs.-ftMistype .... 5 inch C x6.7. ( 6.7 lbs/ft)
> and for a C x 6.7 is 6000lbs-ft.
>
The 5 inch channel is twice the strength of the 4 inch and 1.3
lbs./ft. heavier.
Charles
Garth,
The litigious attitude in the US may be part of the reason. But
possibly the US spec vehicles have lighter shocks, springs and lower
load capacity tires than the rest of the globe, all for the sake of
ride comfort. Living here in Central America I am surprised at the
difference in equipment for this market as compared to what I saw in
the US.
Lewis
The litigious attitude in the US may be part of the reason. But
possibly the US spec vehicles have lighter shocks, springs and lower
load capacity tires than the rest of the globe, all for the sake of
ride comfort. Living here in Central America I am surprised at the
difference in equipment for this market as compared to what I saw in
the US.
Lewis
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
> > Confusing all this is that when I look up the towing capacity for
> our
> > car (Suzuki XL-7), on US sites it's listed as 3000 lbs. On European
> > and UK sites, it's listed as 4000 lbs. -- which would make all of
> this
> > very simple. Do the governments have different regulations about how
> > to calculate towing capacity? Is the U.S. so litigious that Suzuki
> > lists a lower capacity here to shield themselves from lawsuits?
The Suzuki Australia website gives the towing limit for a braked
trailer as 4080 lb., for the XL-7 with a 6-cyl 2736cc (167 cu. in. I
think) 180 hp engine.
I guess if you exceed the manufacturer's recommendation you are not
covered by the warranty if the chassis stretches or a spring breaks
or something.
We also have State regulations (6 States cf. yr 50) about towing
weight, mainly based on the weight (tare? gross? I don't know) of the
towing vehicle. No doubt the same applies in the USA.
Another factor is the allowable towball load that a manufacturer
usually sets. I don't know what it is for the XL-7. Sometimes there
is a sticker showing this on the vehicle itself.
Howard
trailer as 4080 lb., for the XL-7 with a 6-cyl 2736cc (167 cu. in. I
think) 180 hp engine.
I guess if you exceed the manufacturer's recommendation you are not
covered by the warranty if the chassis stretches or a spring breaks
or something.
We also have State regulations (6 States cf. yr 50) about towing
weight, mainly based on the weight (tare? gross? I don't know) of the
towing vehicle. No doubt the same applies in the USA.
Another factor is the allowable towball load that a manufacturer
usually sets. I don't know what it is for the XL-7. Sometimes there
is a sticker showing this on the vehicle itself.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
> Confusing all this is that when I look up the towing capacity for
our
> car (Suzuki XL-7), on US sites it's listed as 3000 lbs. On European
> and UK sites, it's listed as 4000 lbs. -- which would make all of
this
> very simple. Do the governments have different regulations about how
> to calculate towing capacity? Is the U.S. so litigious that Suzuki
> lists a lower capacity here to shield themselves from lawsuits?
> Does "allowable stress moment" mean the point at which we'd getsafety
> failure of the piece, or permanent deformation -- or is there a
> factor built into it? (Here I am, pushing the limits again . . . )It is based on 0.66 times the mimimun yield stress ie. regular
carbon steel has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi. Above that
it will bend. Allowable stress is 66% of the bending point. You
should have to overload by 50% (66%+33%) to bend it. Moment = 0.66
x 36000 x Section modulus. The section modulus is determined by the
shape and the area of the cross-section of the beam.
>or X5?
> Also, for the pothole factor: any ballpark idea what the increased
> force caused by road bumps would be? Tongue weight X 1.5? or X2?
Your call. Remember the boat is stiff like a grider too so the
saftey factor would be less than say a load of sand. Pot holes won't
cause much additional bending stress. With good springs, boat wt.
x1.5 should do it. That would be 50% over bending then 50% more.
Enough force to get 2g's (double the weight)will will compress
springs and tires before it gets to the frame. The frame does not
see the shock that the tires see.
Charles
Charles --
Cool! Thanks for those numbers. Very helpful in trying to figure how
light is too light.
Does "allowable stress moment" mean the point at which we'd get
failure of the piece, or permanent deformation -- or is there a safety
factor built into it? (Here I am, pushing the limits again . . . )
Also, for the pothole factor: any ballpark idea what the increased
force caused by road bumps would be? Tongue weight X 1.5? or X2? or X5?
All best,
Garth
P.S. Bolger content -- I CAN'T WAIT to go sailing next summer, in my
Bolger-inspired, Michalak-designed, trailerable boat!
Cool! Thanks for those numbers. Very helpful in trying to figure how
light is too light.
Does "allowable stress moment" mean the point at which we'd get
failure of the piece, or permanent deformation -- or is there a safety
factor built into it? (Here I am, pushing the limits again . . . )
Also, for the pothole factor: any ballpark idea what the increased
force caused by road bumps would be? Tongue weight X 1.5? or X2? or X5?
All best,
Garth
P.S. Bolger content -- I CAN'T WAIT to go sailing next summer, in my
Bolger-inspired, Michalak-designed, trailerable boat!
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "chodges31711" <chodges@a...> wrote:
>
> The allowable stress Moment for a 4 inch C x 5.4 is 4000lbs.-ft
> and for a C x 6.7 is 6000lbs-ft.
>
> That means if the fulcrum is at the axle, a 4 inch channel can take
> 4000 lbs at a foot from the axle, or 1000 lbs at 4 feet, or 400 lbs
> at 10 feet. A trailer has two channels so double it. You need a
> safety factor for pot holes. You need to draw a moment diagram to
> find how the weight is distributed over the channel. Even in a long
> boat most weight will be closer than you think to the trailer axle
> because the axle is near the CG.
>
> Charles
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
I expect it has more to do with warranty concerns than legalities.
North Americans tend to drive longer, harder and faster than
Europeans, simply because of the time/distances involved.
(Discounting individual egos of course:-)
If the identical vehicle is listed as having more capacity in Europe,
it may be set up slightly different as well. May come with a heavier
towing package as standard? But I would feel that 500 over won't
hurt. (That is equivalent to two passengers.)
Small Suv's do not make good tow vehicles according to articles I
have read in Trailer Life mag. I believe it has to do with short WB,
stiff suspenson and hi CG as well as power loss due to the FWD's
extra machinery.
I would tend to drive at 55 and you will soon tell by you mileage and
reserve power availability if you are over extending the vehicle's
abilities.
Cheers, Nels
> Confusing all this is that when I look up the towing capacity forour
> car (Suzuki XL-7), on US sites it's listed as 3000 lbs. On Europeanthis
> and UK sites, it's listed as 4000 lbs. -- which would make all of
> very simple. Do the governments have different regulations about howHi Garth,
> to calculate towing capacity? Is the U.S. so litigious that Suzuki
> lists a lower capacity here to shield themselves from lawsuits?
>
> Deep in ignorance, but learning a ltitle each day . . .
>
> Garth
I expect it has more to do with warranty concerns than legalities.
North Americans tend to drive longer, harder and faster than
Europeans, simply because of the time/distances involved.
(Discounting individual egos of course:-)
If the identical vehicle is listed as having more capacity in Europe,
it may be set up slightly different as well. May come with a heavier
towing package as standard? But I would feel that 500 over won't
hurt. (That is equivalent to two passengers.)
Small Suv's do not make good tow vehicles according to articles I
have read in Trailer Life mag. I believe it has to do with short WB,
stiff suspenson and hi CG as well as power loss due to the FWD's
extra machinery.
I would tend to drive at 55 and you will soon tell by you mileage and
reserve power availability if you are over extending the vehicle's
abilities.
Cheers, Nels
The allowable stress Moment for a 4 inch C x 5.4 is 4000lbs.-ft
and for a C x 6.7 is 6000lbs-ft.
That means if the fulcrum is at the axle, a 4 inch channel can take
4000 lbs at a foot from the axle, or 1000 lbs at 4 feet, or 400 lbs
at 10 feet. A trailer has two channels so double it. You need a
safety factor for pot holes. You need to draw a moment diagram to
find how the weight is distributed over the channel. Even in a long
boat most weight will be closer than you think to the trailer axle
because the axle is near the CG.
Charles
and for a C x 6.7 is 6000lbs-ft.
That means if the fulcrum is at the axle, a 4 inch channel can take
4000 lbs at a foot from the axle, or 1000 lbs at 4 feet, or 400 lbs
at 10 feet. A trailer has two channels so double it. You need a
safety factor for pot holes. You need to draw a moment diagram to
find how the weight is distributed over the channel. Even in a long
boat most weight will be closer than you think to the trailer axle
because the axle is near the CG.
Charles
Thanks, Jeff and Rick and Nels, for your collective trailer wisdom.
Jeff's idea to go to 5" C-channel would add 130 pounds, probably
putting me over my maximum towing capacity, but making for a much
stronger trailer. (Now I'm thinking 5" for the longitudinals, 4" for
the cross-pieces . . . .) Rick -- your story of using the 2" channel
and the 1/2" round stock truss held up 2" high makes me wonder if you
wound up creating the equivalent, or nearly so, of 4" C-channel for
stiffness. Your boat probably weighed a lot less than a Cormorant, so
maybe 4" won't be enough for me -- but as you say, tying in to the
boat stiffens it all up.
I definitely don't want to economize my trailer to death, so Nels'
points are well taken. We may just need to upgrade our vehicle as you
say, or trade it for something that has a higher capacity.
I've boxed myself into this little trailer weight vs. strength puzzle
with the restraint of our car's towing capacity, and maybe that's all
I should think about changing.
Confusing all this is that when I look up the towing capacity for our
car (Suzuki XL-7), on US sites it's listed as 3000 lbs. On European
and UK sites, it's listed as 4000 lbs. -- which would make all of this
very simple. Do the governments have different regulations about how
to calculate towing capacity? Is the U.S. so litigious that Suzuki
lists a lower capacity here to shield themselves from lawsuits?
Deep in ignorance, but learning a ltitle each day . . .
Garth
Jeff's idea to go to 5" C-channel would add 130 pounds, probably
putting me over my maximum towing capacity, but making for a much
stronger trailer. (Now I'm thinking 5" for the longitudinals, 4" for
the cross-pieces . . . .) Rick -- your story of using the 2" channel
and the 1/2" round stock truss held up 2" high makes me wonder if you
wound up creating the equivalent, or nearly so, of 4" C-channel for
stiffness. Your boat probably weighed a lot less than a Cormorant, so
maybe 4" won't be enough for me -- but as you say, tying in to the
boat stiffens it all up.
I definitely don't want to economize my trailer to death, so Nels'
points are well taken. We may just need to upgrade our vehicle as you
say, or trade it for something that has a higher capacity.
I've boxed myself into this little trailer weight vs. strength puzzle
with the restraint of our car's towing capacity, and maybe that's all
I should think about changing.
Confusing all this is that when I look up the towing capacity for our
car (Suzuki XL-7), on US sites it's listed as 3000 lbs. On European
and UK sites, it's listed as 4000 lbs. -- which would make all of this
very simple. Do the governments have different regulations about how
to calculate towing capacity? Is the U.S. so litigious that Suzuki
lists a lower capacity here to shield themselves from lawsuits?
Deep in ignorance, but learning a ltitle each day . . .
Garth
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
Trailers take a real pounding, mainly because the drivers try to keep
up with normal traffic, which is usually about 10 mph over the speed
limit. You only have to follow people towing boats to get some idea
of what a pounding they take, especially the extended tongue that is
bouncing up and down between the wheels and the tow vehicle.
Personally I would not compromise by trying to save a couple hundred
pounds in trailer weight. I would rather be a couple hundred pounds
over and drive slower, as well as see what I can do to help my tow
vehicle increase it's abilities by say 500 pounds. This may include
suspension help, equalizer hitch, oil cooler, using a higher grade
of gas and not using overdrive. These improvements to the tow vehicle
can easily add up to another $500 - $1000 if you need electric brakes
and an equalizer hitch. See it as a form of insurance and it will
prolong the life of the vehicle if you want to tow a trailer.
Of course this also depends on how far you plan to go and what kind
of hills and roads you will be facing. Your load should never be tail
heavy either or you will have severe handling problems. Also, any
stuff you carry in the back of the vehicle is a part of the total
towing capacity.
Most RV centers have manuals on trailer towing and they have a lot of
good information.
Compromising on a trailer is poor economy in the long run IMO.
Cheers, Nels
>just
> I've been thinking about trailers a lot lately -- I hope to weld one
> up this winter for Cormorant. I'd like to optimize the load-carrying
> vs. trailer weight. The boat and its gear will probably come out
> around 2000 lbs. We have a car that'll tow 3000 lbs. So I'd like tooverbuilt . . .
> get my trailer in under 1000 lbs. I know it'll be cutting it close,
> strengthwise, but I also think most trailers are way
>I would have to disagree with you that trailers are way overbuilt.
Trailers take a real pounding, mainly because the drivers try to keep
up with normal traffic, which is usually about 10 mph over the speed
limit. You only have to follow people towing boats to get some idea
of what a pounding they take, especially the extended tongue that is
bouncing up and down between the wheels and the tow vehicle.
Personally I would not compromise by trying to save a couple hundred
pounds in trailer weight. I would rather be a couple hundred pounds
over and drive slower, as well as see what I can do to help my tow
vehicle increase it's abilities by say 500 pounds. This may include
suspension help, equalizer hitch, oil cooler, using a higher grade
of gas and not using overdrive. These improvements to the tow vehicle
can easily add up to another $500 - $1000 if you need electric brakes
and an equalizer hitch. See it as a form of insurance and it will
prolong the life of the vehicle if you want to tow a trailer.
Of course this also depends on how far you plan to go and what kind
of hills and roads you will be facing. Your load should never be tail
heavy either or you will have severe handling problems. Also, any
stuff you carry in the back of the vehicle is a part of the total
towing capacity.
Most RV centers have manuals on trailer towing and they have a lot of
good information.
Compromising on a trailer is poor economy in the long run IMO.
Cheers, Nels
Garth,
Long time ago I modified a fishingboat trailer to fit a 24' loa x 4' beam light weight sharpie. The trailer was originally for a 14' aluminum john boat and made of standard 2" steel channel.
I removed the axle and springs and cut out the cross pieces (the trailer was 66" wide) then pulled the side rails in with several spanish windlasses to meet the new 50" crosspieces (cutdown from the old.) A friend welded that up, then added a 10' extension to the rear using the same size channel. A 48" long doubler channel was added (like a butt block) over the splices and a stand off rail of 1/2" round stock was added over the entire length raised on 2" tall "legs" of 1" x 1/4" bar stock. (Bonus was it became a super tie down rail). Then a new axle and springs of proper size... Layed a pair of full lenght green 2x6's on the cross beams, loaded the boat and then used jacks and props to bend up the 2x6's at eack end to match the rocker curve, the planks dried to that curve, my friend then welded up brackets to support them. This kept the hull very low on "glove fit" bunks. Empty, the trailer would flex quite a bit if you stood on it between the axle and coupler and bounced. With
the boat loaded and lashed to the stought winchpost and the transom tied down it had no measurable flex with four adults bouncing on the trailer rails.. The welder spoke of something about a box girder effect... The springs were soft enough so the trailer and boat stayed steady while the tires/axle bounced up and down over bumps and potholes at highway speed.
No engineering involved, just "it oughtta work" guessing. Cost was about $300. The trailer/boat survived four trips to Baja and back on sometimes very rough roads and years of local trips before I sold it.. Twenty plus years later it's still going...
Your mileage may vary.
Rick
GarthAB <garth@...> wrote:
I've been thinking about trailers a lot lately -- I hope to weld one
up this winter for Cormorant. I'd like to optimize the load-carrying
vs. trailer weight. The boat and its gear will probably come out just
around 2000 lbs. We have a car that'll tow 3000 lbs. So I'd like to
get my trailer in under 1000 lbs. I know it'll be cutting it close,
strengthwise, but I also think most trailers are way overbuilt . . .
I think Jeff said his Sneakeasy trailer weighed 800 lbs. (? or was
that 800 dollars -- sorry -- bad memory . . . ) and can carry
1200-1500 lbs. I'd like to weld a 30' tandem-axle trailer out of 4"
C-channel steel (or maybe 5" aluminum I-beam, to save a couple hundred
lbs.).
Does anyone have the engineering background, or just good ol'
experience, to know if this is feasible, for carrying a 2000 lb. boat?
It seems most of the weight of the boat rides right on the axles, with
minimum force flexing the longer spans of the structure. I.e. if your
tongue weight is 200 lbs., you're applying that force to the span that
stretches from the forward axle to the hitch. And except for when
loading the boat onto the trailer, less weight is regularly applied to
the stretch of trailer aft of amidships.
It seems to me, going on foggy intuition and perhaps some crazy
assumptions, that a bridge of parallel 4" C-channel beams 15' long,
tied together in a couple of places with more 4" C-channel, ought to
be able to support 200 lbs., or really, the greater forces when you
hit a bump while traveling, without permanently deforming.
But basically, I'm in the dark.
Any thoughts on this?
Also, what size aluminum gives equivalent strength to 4" C-channel steel?
All best,
Garth
(I recently read that we should prize our ignorance, as it gives us so
many opportunities to learn. . . . I'm rich in ignorance.)
Long time ago I modified a fishingboat trailer to fit a 24' loa x 4' beam light weight sharpie. The trailer was originally for a 14' aluminum john boat and made of standard 2" steel channel.
I removed the axle and springs and cut out the cross pieces (the trailer was 66" wide) then pulled the side rails in with several spanish windlasses to meet the new 50" crosspieces (cutdown from the old.) A friend welded that up, then added a 10' extension to the rear using the same size channel. A 48" long doubler channel was added (like a butt block) over the splices and a stand off rail of 1/2" round stock was added over the entire length raised on 2" tall "legs" of 1" x 1/4" bar stock. (Bonus was it became a super tie down rail). Then a new axle and springs of proper size... Layed a pair of full lenght green 2x6's on the cross beams, loaded the boat and then used jacks and props to bend up the 2x6's at eack end to match the rocker curve, the planks dried to that curve, my friend then welded up brackets to support them. This kept the hull very low on "glove fit" bunks. Empty, the trailer would flex quite a bit if you stood on it between the axle and coupler and bounced. With
the boat loaded and lashed to the stought winchpost and the transom tied down it had no measurable flex with four adults bouncing on the trailer rails.. The welder spoke of something about a box girder effect... The springs were soft enough so the trailer and boat stayed steady while the tires/axle bounced up and down over bumps and potholes at highway speed.
No engineering involved, just "it oughtta work" guessing. Cost was about $300. The trailer/boat survived four trips to Baja and back on sometimes very rough roads and years of local trips before I sold it.. Twenty plus years later it's still going...
Your mileage may vary.
Rick
GarthAB <garth@...> wrote:
I've been thinking about trailers a lot lately -- I hope to weld one
up this winter for Cormorant. I'd like to optimize the load-carrying
vs. trailer weight. The boat and its gear will probably come out just
around 2000 lbs. We have a car that'll tow 3000 lbs. So I'd like to
get my trailer in under 1000 lbs. I know it'll be cutting it close,
strengthwise, but I also think most trailers are way overbuilt . . .
I think Jeff said his Sneakeasy trailer weighed 800 lbs. (? or was
that 800 dollars -- sorry -- bad memory . . . ) and can carry
1200-1500 lbs. I'd like to weld a 30' tandem-axle trailer out of 4"
C-channel steel (or maybe 5" aluminum I-beam, to save a couple hundred
lbs.).
Does anyone have the engineering background, or just good ol'
experience, to know if this is feasible, for carrying a 2000 lb. boat?
It seems most of the weight of the boat rides right on the axles, with
minimum force flexing the longer spans of the structure. I.e. if your
tongue weight is 200 lbs., you're applying that force to the span that
stretches from the forward axle to the hitch. And except for when
loading the boat onto the trailer, less weight is regularly applied to
the stretch of trailer aft of amidships.
It seems to me, going on foggy intuition and perhaps some crazy
assumptions, that a bridge of parallel 4" C-channel beams 15' long,
tied together in a couple of places with more 4" C-channel, ought to
be able to support 200 lbs., or really, the greater forces when you
hit a bump while traveling, without permanently deforming.
But basically, I'm in the dark.
Any thoughts on this?
Also, what size aluminum gives equivalent strength to 4" C-channel steel?
All best,
Garth
(I recently read that we should prize our ignorance, as it gives us so
many opportunities to learn. . . . I'm rich in ignorance.)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mike French" <frenchwheatley@s...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Philip Smith <pbs@w...> wrote:
> > One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and have
> > them design and build one to fit the weight and
> > dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
> > than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
>
> Thats what I did for my Shearwater which was 28 ft long but weighed
> less than 2000 lbs. There was about 6 feet unsupported at the stern
> but not enough weight to worry about, and it was designed so we could
> reposition the axles to achieve the proper tongue weight.
> Mike
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I should add to my prior post that, using the Champion trailer
catalog, I added the weights of wheels, axles, hitch, winch,
winchpost, lights, and other assorted goodies, and the weight for a 4"
steel C-channel trailer, using a total of 100' of the C-channel (5.4
lbs. per foot), came out to around 950 lbs.
A similar trailer made of 5" aluminum I-beam (3.43 lbs. per foot) was
200 lbs. less. (Cost of the aluminum is $760 vs. $270 for the steel.)
Promising on the weight side of the equation, but will it handle the load?
All best,
Garth
catalog, I added the weights of wheels, axles, hitch, winch,
winchpost, lights, and other assorted goodies, and the weight for a 4"
steel C-channel trailer, using a total of 100' of the C-channel (5.4
lbs. per foot), came out to around 950 lbs.
A similar trailer made of 5" aluminum I-beam (3.43 lbs. per foot) was
200 lbs. less. (Cost of the aluminum is $760 vs. $270 for the steel.)
Promising on the weight side of the equation, but will it handle the load?
All best,
Garth
You could go to 5" C-Channel and have no problems. 4" C with the truss setup will work as well. One thing about using C-Channel is that it will have some torsion flex simply because it's a flat bed style trailer so pulling it empty makes for a lot of bouncing and twisting. I build my trailers this way and have never had a reason to pull them anywhere empty except to a parking lot so for me it's not an issue. Once the boat is loaded and strapped down there are no problems and I have pulled boats thousands of miles without a problem.
A dual axle layout is good to keep the bridging effect to a minimum. You can get 2000 lb. axle kits that include everything you need but the wheels and tires. Northern Tool is one supplier but there are others that can be cheaper. Weld the spring mounts to a hefty piece of angle iron and through bolt the angle iron to the trailer frame once you get it all balanced and aligned.
As for the tongue, use a 10' length of heavy 3" box steel. It'll handle the 200 lbs easily and probably 5 times that amount. You'll need 2 feet for the hitch and winch post plus 3 feet behind where the C-Channel is bent in to meet the tongue for bracing. Your net will be about 5 feet of trailer length. Add a pair of C-Channel rails with some 2" x 3" angle between them for bracing and you'll end up a very simple trailer.
These types of trailers tend to sit up higher unless you use drop axles but you have to have the width available.
After building three trailers like this I can tell you mine have come out to about 20 lbs. per foot all inclusive. Of course add the weight of the second axle and tires if you building a dual axle version.
I would like to stress that the towing limits on vehicles are maximum limits and I personally would hesitate going any distances at the max. It's just to hard on transmissions and axles. My Ranger is rated to 4000 lbs but there are times on the interstate and in the mountains the Sneakeasy can make it groan big time. I could never imagine pulling 4000 lbs.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A dual axle layout is good to keep the bridging effect to a minimum. You can get 2000 lb. axle kits that include everything you need but the wheels and tires. Northern Tool is one supplier but there are others that can be cheaper. Weld the spring mounts to a hefty piece of angle iron and through bolt the angle iron to the trailer frame once you get it all balanced and aligned.
As for the tongue, use a 10' length of heavy 3" box steel. It'll handle the 200 lbs easily and probably 5 times that amount. You'll need 2 feet for the hitch and winch post plus 3 feet behind where the C-Channel is bent in to meet the tongue for bracing. Your net will be about 5 feet of trailer length. Add a pair of C-Channel rails with some 2" x 3" angle between them for bracing and you'll end up a very simple trailer.
These types of trailers tend to sit up higher unless you use drop axles but you have to have the width available.
After building three trailers like this I can tell you mine have come out to about 20 lbs. per foot all inclusive. Of course add the weight of the second axle and tires if you building a dual axle version.
I would like to stress that the towing limits on vehicles are maximum limits and I personally would hesitate going any distances at the max. It's just to hard on transmissions and axles. My Ranger is rated to 4000 lbs but there are times on the interstate and in the mountains the Sneakeasy can make it groan big time. I could never imagine pulling 4000 lbs.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've been thinking about trailers a lot lately -- I hope to weld one
up this winter for Cormorant. I'd like to optimize the load-carrying
vs. trailer weight. The boat and its gear will probably come out just
around 2000 lbs. We have a car that'll tow 3000 lbs. So I'd like to
get my trailer in under 1000 lbs. I know it'll be cutting it close,
strengthwise, but I also think most trailers are way overbuilt . . .
I think Jeff said his Sneakeasy trailer weighed 800 lbs. (? or was
that 800 dollars -- sorry -- bad memory . . . ) and can carry
1200-1500 lbs. I'd like to weld a 30' tandem-axle trailer out of 4"
C-channel steel (or maybe 5" aluminum I-beam, to save a couple hundred
lbs.).
Does anyone have the engineering background, or just good ol'
experience, to know if this is feasible, for carrying a 2000 lb. boat?
It seems most of the weight of the boat rides right on the axles, with
minimum force flexing the longer spans of the structure. I.e. if your
tongue weight is 200 lbs., you're applying that force to the span that
stretches from the forward axle to the hitch. And except for when
loading the boat onto the trailer, less weight is regularly applied to
the stretch of trailer aft of amidships.
It seems to me, going on foggy intuition and perhaps some crazy
assumptions, that a bridge of parallel 4" C-channel beams 15' long,
tied together in a couple of places with more 4" C-channel, ought to
be able to support 200 lbs., or really, the greater forces when you
hit a bump while traveling, without permanently deforming.
But basically, I'm in the dark.
Any thoughts on this?
Also, what size aluminum gives equivalent strength to 4" C-channel steel?
All best,
Garth
(I recently read that we should prize our ignorance, as it gives us so
many opportunities to learn. . . . I'm rich in ignorance.)
up this winter for Cormorant. I'd like to optimize the load-carrying
vs. trailer weight. The boat and its gear will probably come out just
around 2000 lbs. We have a car that'll tow 3000 lbs. So I'd like to
get my trailer in under 1000 lbs. I know it'll be cutting it close,
strengthwise, but I also think most trailers are way overbuilt . . .
I think Jeff said his Sneakeasy trailer weighed 800 lbs. (? or was
that 800 dollars -- sorry -- bad memory . . . ) and can carry
1200-1500 lbs. I'd like to weld a 30' tandem-axle trailer out of 4"
C-channel steel (or maybe 5" aluminum I-beam, to save a couple hundred
lbs.).
Does anyone have the engineering background, or just good ol'
experience, to know if this is feasible, for carrying a 2000 lb. boat?
It seems most of the weight of the boat rides right on the axles, with
minimum force flexing the longer spans of the structure. I.e. if your
tongue weight is 200 lbs., you're applying that force to the span that
stretches from the forward axle to the hitch. And except for when
loading the boat onto the trailer, less weight is regularly applied to
the stretch of trailer aft of amidships.
It seems to me, going on foggy intuition and perhaps some crazy
assumptions, that a bridge of parallel 4" C-channel beams 15' long,
tied together in a couple of places with more 4" C-channel, ought to
be able to support 200 lbs., or really, the greater forces when you
hit a bump while traveling, without permanently deforming.
But basically, I'm in the dark.
Any thoughts on this?
Also, what size aluminum gives equivalent strength to 4" C-channel steel?
All best,
Garth
(I recently read that we should prize our ignorance, as it gives us so
many opportunities to learn. . . . I'm rich in ignorance.)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mike French" <frenchwheatley@s...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Philip Smith <pbs@w...> wrote:
> > One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and have
> > them design and build one to fit the weight and
> > dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
> > than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
>
> Thats what I did for my Shearwater which was 28 ft long but weighed
> less than 2000 lbs. There was about 6 feet unsupported at the stern
> but not enough weight to worry about, and it was designed so we could
> reposition the axles to achieve the proper tongue weight.
> Mike
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Philip Smith <pbs@w...> wrote:
less than 2000 lbs. There was about 6 feet unsupported at the stern
but not enough weight to worry about, and it was designed so we could
reposition the axles to achieve the proper tongue weight.
Mike
> One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and haveThats what I did for my Shearwater which was 28 ft long but weighed
> them design and build one to fit the weight and
> dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
> than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
less than 2000 lbs. There was about 6 feet unsupported at the stern
but not enough weight to worry about, and it was designed so we could
reposition the axles to achieve the proper tongue weight.
Mike
And then there is Fritz Funk's Sneakeasy trailer with which he hauled
his Sneakeasy from Juneau to Wisconsin. I guarantee he didn't put $800
in that. Maybe he will include some material on it WHEN HE UPDATES HIS
SNEAKEASY WEB PAGE ON ALL THE NEAT THINGS HE HAS DONE WITH THE SNEAKEASY
SINCE THE LAST UPDATE. There, that should have been loud enough to carry
down the block.
HJ
Jeff wrote:
his Sneakeasy from Juneau to Wisconsin. I guarantee he didn't put $800
in that. Maybe he will include some material on it WHEN HE UPDATES HIS
SNEAKEASY WEB PAGE ON ALL THE NEAT THINGS HE HAS DONE WITH THE SNEAKEASY
SINCE THE LAST UPDATE. There, that should have been loud enough to carry
down the block.
HJ
Jeff wrote:
>I built a trailer for my Sneakeasy last summer. It took me two weekends using a purchased axle kit and 4" channel. The Tennessee is only another 3 1/2 feet longer and probably weights in about 250 lbs heavier and could easily fit on the Sneakeasy trailer with few modifications. I have about $800.00 invested including fancy wheels so I know you can build it for $750.00 or less. If you scrounge around you could build it for a lot less.
>
>Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip Smith
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: building cost of a Tenessee and trialer
>
>
>
> One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and have
> them design and build one to fit the weight and
> dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
> than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
>
>
>
>
I built a trailer for my Sneakeasy last summer. It took me two weekends using a purchased axle kit and 4" channel. The Tennessee is only another 3 1/2 feet longer and probably weights in about 250 lbs heavier and could easily fit on the Sneakeasy trailer with few modifications. I have about $800.00 invested including fancy wheels so I know you can build it for $750.00 or less. If you scrounge around you could build it for a lot less.
Jeff
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Smith
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: building cost of a Tenessee and trialer
One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and have
them design and build one to fit the weight and
dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
One option is to go to a trailer manufacturer and have
them design and build one to fit the weight and
dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
them design and build one to fit the weight and
dimensions of the Tennesee. They shouldn't charge more
than "retail" and you'd get one engineered properly.
> I think the hardest requirement to fill with out building your ownis the trailer. If you buy a trailer for a 30 ft boat you get one
that is designed to carry 7-10 thousand pounds, If you buy one for
1200-1500 lbs you get a trailer for a 19 ft boat.
>> >expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?I think your choice is to buy the 19 ft. trailer and have a welding
shop lengthen it or buy the wheels, axle, hitch etc. and have the
welding shop build the frame. 4 inch channel (5.4 lb./ft.) is
sufficient for Tenn. (like the trailer in the previous link with
Tenn. pictures). They added a small truss on top for stiffness.
If you can do the welding yourself, trailers are easy to build and
relatively cheap.
Glen-L.com has a book on building your own trailer.
Charles
> Even if uncomfortable, could a stongly built hullI think that these are the kinds of questions that
> deal with heavier
> weather/waves?
>
> Anybody have experience here? People just keep
> saying "it will
> slap/pound" or whatever. OK... but will it make it?
>
> I know, I'm simplifying, but wonder if I could get
> some additional
> feedback.
>
should be asked of PB&F. It iw worth the cost of a
stamp or a fax to ask the Master himself.
Phil Smith
> Even if uncomfortable, could a stongly built hull deal with heavierI asked PB&F a similar question, specifically to suggest a boat
> weather/waves?
>
> Anybody have experience here? People just keep saying "it will
> slap/pound" or whatever. OK... but will it make it?
> Bruce
for Westcoast use, including the Inside Passage, and crossing
the Columbia Bar, etc.. SA called me and talked for 20 minutes
about this. She recommended a Dakota hull, which has a more
full bottom than the riverine flat bottom boats. Also, she recommended
more power, and dependablity, which involved an inboard Deutz
diesel engine.
I know this is probably a tough thing to answer, but I'm looking at a
similar sharpie design, but don't have the experience to really judge
its "robustness" in foul weather.
Even if uncomfortable, could a stongly built hull deal with heavier
weather/waves?
Anybody have experience here? People just keep saying "it will
slap/pound" or whatever. OK... but will it make it?
I know, I'm simplifying, but wonder if I could get some additional
feedback.
Thanks,
Bruce
similar sharpie design, but don't have the experience to really judge
its "robustness" in foul weather.
Even if uncomfortable, could a stongly built hull deal with heavier
weather/waves?
Anybody have experience here? People just keep saying "it will
slap/pound" or whatever. OK... but will it make it?
I know, I'm simplifying, but wonder if I could get some additional
feedback.
Thanks,
Bruce
On Dec 11, 2004, at 14:36, Harry James wrote:
>
> The Tennessee is on my short list of boats to build on retirement next
> Oct. Whatever I build will cruise South East AK. late spring and
> summer to Sept. and I don't have any worries about its seaworthy
> aspect. I would have to do Cabin mods to accommodate the local
> climate. I have cruised Puget Sound from Olympia to the Canadian Gulf
> Islands and Tennessee is very well suited for those waters. I put this
> link in a few days ago showing the Tennessee on Lake Washington. You
> might be able to track down the owner.
>
>http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/pages/dicktenn.htm
>
> The little power required for these narrow power sharpies is hard to
> believe until you experience it.
>
> I think the hardest requirement to fill with out building your own is
> the trailer. If you buy a trailer for a 30 ft boat you get one that is
> designed to carry 7-10 thousand pounds, If you buy one for 1200-1500
> lbs you get a trailer for a 19 ft boat.
>
> HJ
>
>
>
> bluto4566 wrote:
>
>> I am facinated with building a Tenessee but have some questions.
>> Would it be a good boat for Puget Sound? What kind of speed would
>> she make with a 15hp outboard? Does anyone have a bill of materials
>> for this boat? I would like to know what the cost of constructing
>> the basic hull would be. I would also like to know how much I can
>> expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bolger rules!!!
>> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
>> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
>> posts
>> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
>> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
>> Fax: (978) 282-1349
>> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
> Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Tennessee is on my short list of boats to build on retirement next Oct. Whatever I build will cruise South East AK. late spring and summer to Sept. and I don't have any worries about its seaworthy aspect. I would have to do Cabin mods to accommodate the local climate. I have cruised Puget Sound from Olympia to the Canadian Gulf Islands and Tennessee is very well suited for those waters. I put this link in a few days ago showing the Tennessee on Lake Washington. You might be able to track down the owner.
http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/pages/dicktenn.htm
The little power required for these narrow power sharpies is hard to believe until you experience it.
I think the hardest requirement to fill with out building your own is the trailer. If you buy a trailer for a 30 ft boat you get one that is designed to carry 7-10 thousand pounds, If you buy one for 1200-1500 lbs you get a trailer for a 19 ft boat.
HJ
bluto4566 wrote:
http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/pages/dicktenn.htm
The little power required for these narrow power sharpies is hard to believe until you experience it.
I think the hardest requirement to fill with out building your own is the trailer. If you buy a trailer for a 30 ft boat you get one that is designed to carry 7-10 thousand pounds, If you buy one for 1200-1500 lbs you get a trailer for a 19 ft boat.
HJ
bluto4566 wrote:
>I am facinated with building a Tenessee but have some questions.
>Would it be a good boat for Puget Sound? What kind of speed would
>she make with a 15hp outboard? Does anyone have a bill of materials
>for this boat? I would like to know what the cost of constructing
>the basic hull would be. I would also like to know how much I can
>expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
>- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
>- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
>- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
Yes, a good idea; and I already have the 15hp motor. Now, if that
acre of lawn would just stop growing (early summer, and 5" of rain
last week), and that model 10-rater yacht I acquired yesterday would
complete itself ...
Howard
acre of lawn would just stop growing (early summer, and 5" of rain
last week), and that model 10-rater yacht I acquired yesterday would
complete itself ...
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> > without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered,
trailerable,
> > economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
> > something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
> > day or camp-cruise two people?
>
> A Slicer?
> 15hp rated. Tent type camp cruising.
> To anticipate the next question -- it's one I've asked myself often,Slicer seems to be designed to the specs above.
> without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered, trailerable,
> economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
> something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
> day or camp-cruise two people? To be no more expensive, it would have
> to be smaller, but Tennessee has a lot of under-utilized space.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/excerpts/maib/1/index.cfm
Link to a MAIB exerpt.
I would say that Idaho is a boat that uses the space better than a
plans built Tennesee. One might need to remove the designed cabin on
Idaho and go with multiple biminis or somesuch in its place.
The question would be is the dead flat bottom of Idaho at least
comparable to the mildly rockered Tennesee? What will happen when the
long fine bow of Idaho gets into a wave?
Other ideas? How 'bout a lighter version of the work skiff? Since
you aren't going to bolt on lots of power, cut the plywood thickness
in 1/2. Lighter boat would be more seaworthy.
http://www.instantboats.com/skiff18.htm
To be even more heretical, a Michalak Dorado, or a Michalak Caprice
built like a Dorado.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
addition.
http://www.instantboats.com/skiff18.htm
Cheers, Nels
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>often,
> To anticipate the next question -- it's one I've asked myself
> without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered, trailerable,have
> economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
> something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
> day or camp-cruise two people? To be no more expensive, it would
> to be smaller, but Tennessee has a lot of under-utilized space.I would probably choose the Clam/Work skiff with walk-through cabin
>
> Any ideas, anyone?
>
> Howard
addition.
http://www.instantboats.com/skiff18.htm
Cheers, Nels
> without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered, trailerable,A Slicer?
> economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
> something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
> day or camp-cruise two people?
15hp rated. Tent type camp cruising.
I wouldn't probably ever go out in more than a 1.5 foot chop. I was
hoping she would be long enough to step over chop. CSB claims that
Idaho can. I've fished commercially off the coast many times in
small flat bottom "dorries" and never felt I was in danger. These
boats are closer to "Tallman Skiffs". I guess the Tenn. is not the
same. How would one go about getting a trailer for one of these?
Custom made?
hoping she would be long enough to step over chop. CSB claims that
Idaho can. I've fished commercially off the coast many times in
small flat bottom "dorries" and never felt I was in danger. These
boats are closer to "Tallman Skiffs". I guess the Tenn. is not the
same. How would one go about getting a trailer for one of these?
Custom made?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:36:28 -0000, Howard Stephenson
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know Puget Sound, but the map indicates there would be
lots
> > of sheltered areas there where a Tennessee would be OK. It's ideal
> > for a river, canal or small lake -- or a narrow sound, I guess.
> >
>
> Well, the Tenessee photo is of Portage Bay and Evergreen Point, in
> Lake Washington, near the U.of W.. That freshwater lake connects to
> Puget
> Sounds through a lock, but the main part of Puget Sound can be too
> rough for a flat bottom boat I would guess, both through wind &
fetch
> and through freighter or ferry boat wakes. Connected to the main
> part of the sound are lots of sheltered inlets, etc.. which are
calmer,
> but getting from one to the other would require choosing your timing
> if you want flat water.
To anticipate the next question -- it's one I've asked myself often,
without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered, trailerable,
economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
day or camp-cruise two people? To be no more expensive, it would have
to be smaller, but Tennessee has a lot of under-utilized space.
Any ideas, anyone?
Howard
without finding an answer -- which Bolger low-powered, trailerable,
economical boat would be better in rough water and still have
something like the same capacity to take a small party out for the
day or camp-cruise two people? To be no more expensive, it would have
to be smaller, but Tennessee has a lot of under-utilized space.
Any ideas, anyone?
Howard
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:36:28 -0000, Howard Stephenson
<stephensonhw@...> wrote:
Lake Washington, near the U.of W.. That freshwater lake connects to
Puget
Sounds through a lock, but the main part of Puget Sound can be too
rough for a flat bottom boat I would guess, both through wind & fetch
and through freighter or ferry boat wakes. Connected to the main
part of the sound are lots of sheltered inlets, etc.. which are calmer,
but getting from one to the other would require choosing your timing
if you want flat water.
<stephensonhw@...> wrote:
>Well, the Tenessee photo is of Portage Bay and Evergreen Point, in
> I don't know Puget Sound, but the map indicates there would be lots
> of sheltered areas there where a Tennessee would be OK. It's ideal
> for a river, canal or small lake -- or a narrow sound, I guess.
>
Lake Washington, near the U.of W.. That freshwater lake connects to
Puget
Sounds through a lock, but the main part of Puget Sound can be too
rough for a flat bottom boat I would guess, both through wind & fetch
and through freighter or ferry boat wakes. Connected to the main
part of the sound are lots of sheltered inlets, etc.. which are calmer,
but getting from one to the other would require choosing your timing
if you want flat water.
I don't know Puget Sound, but the map indicates there would be lots
of sheltered areas there where a Tennessee would be OK. It's ideal
for a river, canal or small lake -- or a narrow sound, I guess.
PCB talked about 10 kt with 10 hp. You'd get a little more with 15
hp -- maybe 12 kt with a light load. Ten kt would be much more sedate
and restful; it's no speedboat.
A dozen years ago the much-maligned Australian Amateur Boatbuilder
published a partial bill of materials, probably for a modified
version with an engine cover and a plywood canopy over the cockpit.
It started with 750 hours of professional labor (high finish) and 29
sheets of 3/8 marine ply. The rest depends a lot on how you build it
e.g. WEST-treatment of the ply? glass sheathing? paint job? fancy
hatches, portlights and fittings?
You could start by costing the ply and adding about 50% for the
framing timber. If that doesn't frighten you (as it did me) you could
price fittings, fasteners, paint, resin etc. from a catalog.
The boat is light enough for a single-axle trailer. Maybe US 2000. If
you had a suitable place, it could be kept in the water and hauled
out once a year.
Howard
of sheltered areas there where a Tennessee would be OK. It's ideal
for a river, canal or small lake -- or a narrow sound, I guess.
PCB talked about 10 kt with 10 hp. You'd get a little more with 15
hp -- maybe 12 kt with a light load. Ten kt would be much more sedate
and restful; it's no speedboat.
A dozen years ago the much-maligned Australian Amateur Boatbuilder
published a partial bill of materials, probably for a modified
version with an engine cover and a plywood canopy over the cockpit.
It started with 750 hours of professional labor (high finish) and 29
sheets of 3/8 marine ply. The rest depends a lot on how you build it
e.g. WEST-treatment of the ply? glass sheathing? paint job? fancy
hatches, portlights and fittings?
You could start by costing the ply and adding about 50% for the
framing timber. If that doesn't frighten you (as it did me) you could
price fittings, fasteners, paint, resin etc. from a catalog.
The boat is light enough for a single-axle trailer. Maybe US 2000. If
you had a suitable place, it could be kept in the water and hauled
out once a year.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "bluto4566" <bluto4566@h...> wrote:
>
> I am facinated with building a Tenessee but have some questions.
> Would it be a good boat for Puget Sound? What kind of speed would
> she make with a 15hp outboard? Does anyone have a bill of
materials
> for this boat? I would like to know what the cost of constructing
> the basic hull would be. I would also like to know how much I can
> expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?
I am facinated with building a Tenessee but have some questions.
Would it be a good boat for Puget Sound? What kind of speed would
she make with a 15hp outboard? Does anyone have a bill of materials
for this boat? I would like to know what the cost of constructing
the basic hull would be. I would also like to know how much I can
expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?
Would it be a good boat for Puget Sound? What kind of speed would
she make with a 15hp outboard? Does anyone have a bill of materials
for this boat? I would like to know what the cost of constructing
the basic hull would be. I would also like to know how much I can
expect to pay for a trailer for this rather lenghty contraption?