Re: [bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy...

Thanks all for the encouragement to stay! I'm not sure if I'll be modifying the Sneakeasy design or modifying the V-bottom design to use Bolger construction methods, but either will use Bolger/Sneakeasy concepts. Ultimately it will depend on whether I decide to go with an inboard or just take the easier way out and build an outboard model.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Chester Young" <chester@...> wrote:
>
> f_swygert:
>
> Stay and post. It is the best way to share ideas and is inspiring to those
> of us who are not experienced with boat building. Also it is a modification
> of a Bolger and seeing so much of that is what has me working on EstherMae.
> For which I also want to say thanks to all who have weighed in on my recent
> request regarding foam panels. And thanks to all who have posted their work
> for the inspiration.
>
> ~Caloosarat
>

>
> From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> f_swygert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:30 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy...
>
>
> What I think I've decided to do (could still change!) is build an
> amalgamation
> of the 22' V bottom boat that I posted in my photo album (Frank Swygert
> Photos) and "Sneakeasy". It won't really be a Bolger boat, but unless
> someone objects I'll stay with this group and post updates.
>
> Basically I plan on adapting as much of the Sneakeasy construction technique
> to the V bottom as possible. I'll still need a backbone to keep the frames
> aligned though. I'm thinking about making a 12" or so wide flat down the
> center instead of a true V bottom. The 22' V design should adapt to plywood
> on frame construction easy enough.

Amen!

On Jan 5, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Chester Young wrote:

 

f_swygert:

 

Stay and post.  It is the best way to share ideas and is inspiring to those of us who are not experienced with boat building.  Also it is a modification of a Bolger and seeing so much of that is what has me working on EstherMae.  For which I also want to say thanks to all who have weighed in on my recent request regarding foam panels.  And thanks to all who have posted their work for the inspiration.

 

~Caloosarat

 

 

From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Off_swygert
Sent:Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:30 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy...

 

 

What I think I've decided to do (could still change!) is build an amalgamation
of the 22' V bottom boat that I posted in my photo album (Frank Swygert Photos) and "Sneakeasy". It won't really be a Bolger boat, but unless someone objects I'll stay with this group and post updates.

Basically I plan on adapting as much of the Sneakeasy construction technique to the V bottom as possible. I'll still need a backbone to keep the frames aligned though. I'm thinking about making a 12" or so wide flat down the center instead of a true V bottom. The 22' V design should adapt to plywood on frame construction easy enough.

I ordered the 22' V plan set. It's not full size plans, more like the plans in old magazines and books from the 40s-60s. Enough for an experienced carpenter/wood worker to build by, but not for beginners.

I think I know just enough, and enough to know where my limitations are and to ask of experienced boat builders here. All I've built in the way of boats is a Pirogue, but I've built cabinets and houses, and also a decent metal fabricator. 24 years USAF as a Structural Specialist, which is maintaining and constructing anything from ground up -- carpentry, masonry, concrete, and even steel buildings and fabrication.

I'm also an accomplished mechanic, modifying older cars. Not really restoring, but bringing back to life and updating. I hate someone saying they "restored" their 55 Chevy and it has a 2005 crate engine with auto OD trans, etc. "Restored" is put back to original condition, maybe with some allowance for safety features like updated brakes and other things that aren't obvious. None of my cars have ever been more than cosmetically restored -- they look close to original inside and out, but in the one I drive now I have modern buckets seats and a few comfort/convenience items. Only paint, mirrors and wheels are different outside though. Modern EFI engine and OD trans, and it's the only Rambler wagon I know of with a Jag IRS in the back.

I like the elegance of adding a Vee bottom to a flat hull.

What I think I've decided to do (could still change!) is build an amalgamation
of the 22' V bottom boat that I posted in my photo album (Frank Swygert Photos) and "Sneakeasy". It won't really be a Bolger boat, but unless someone objects I'll stay with this group and post updates.

Basically I plan on adapting as much of the Sneakeasy construction technique to the V bottom as possible. I'll still need a backbone to keep the frames aligned though. I'm thinking about making a 12" or so wide flat down the center instead of a true V bottom. The 22' V design should adapt to plywood on frame construction easy enough.

I ordered the 22' V plan set. It's not full size plans, more like the plans in old magazines and books from the 40s-60s. Enough for an experienced carpenter/wood worker to build by, but not for beginners.

I think I know just enough, and enough to know where my limitations are and to ask of experienced boat builders here. All I've built in the way of boats is a Pirogue, but I've built cabinets and houses, and also a decent metal fabricator. 24 years USAF as a Structural Specialist, which is maintaining and constructing anything from ground up -- carpentry, masonry, concrete, and even steel buildings and fabrication.

I'm also an accomplished mechanic, modifying older cars. Not really restoring, but bringing back to life and updating. I hate someone saying they "restored" their 55 Chevy and it has a 2005 crate engine with auto OD trans, etc. "Restored" is put back to original condition, maybe with some allowance for safety features like updated brakes and other things that aren't obvious. None of my cars have ever been more than cosmetically restored -- they look close to original inside and out, but in the one I drive now I have modern buckets seats and a few comfort/convenience items. Only paint, mirrors and wheels are different outside though. Modern EFI engine and OD trans, and it's the only Rambler wagon I know of with a Jag IRS in the back.

Look at this modification of a similiar design:

http://www.duckflatwoodenboats.com/pdfs/nomadII.pdf

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> I just made a photo album "Frank Swygert Photos". There is one file in there now, take a look! It's a plan for a 22' V-bottom cruiser with lines very similar to "Sneakeasy". What I've been thinking of doing is installing an inboard in this manner in a "Sneakeasy". I understand that his being a V-bottom that there is a bit more bouyancy under the engine, and the hull tapers at the back as well as gets shallower, reducing bouyancy in the rear. I basically want to use these lines using a construction technique similar to box keel "Sneakeasy". Won't be quite that simple, but you get the idea. I've even considered a tunnel at the rear for the prop. I ordered the booklet for that particular boat as well. Might prove to be easy enough construction that I just build it instead.
>
> The website ishttp://dngoodchild.com/.Click on "power boats", then search for 5437 (or scroll down about 1/3 the way through the list). Lots of good plans and boat building info on that site, and the booklets are reasonably priced.
>

I just made a photo album "Frank Swygert Photos". There is one file in there now, take a look! It's a plan for a 22' V-bottom cruiser with lines very similar to "Sneakeasy". What I've been thinking of doing is installing an inboard in this manner in a "Sneakeasy". I understand that his being a V-bottom that there is a bit more bouyancy under the engine, and the hull tapers at the back as well as gets shallower, reducing bouyancy in the rear. I basically want to use these lines using a construction technique similar to box keel "Sneakeasy". Won't be quite that simple, but you get the idea. I've even considered a tunnel at the rear for the prop. I ordered the booklet for that particular boat as well. Might prove to be easy enough construction that I just build it instead.

The website ishttp://dngoodchild.com/.Click on "power boats", then search for 5437 (or scroll down about 1/3 the way through the list). Lots of good plans and boat building info on that site, and the booklets are reasonably priced.

Bolger and others have things to say about engine weight and where it is placed. At slow speeds, not so much of a problem. Faster speeds increasingly more problematic. I'm not much interested in powerboats so others have better memory and knowledge. Just a warning to investigate.

If I were into powerboats a stock with recommended engine HP Sneakeasy would be interesting, and for higher expense and speeds a Hickman Sea Sled. A retro triple cockpit has aesthetic appeal. I would NOT try to design my own high speed boat. Double speed causes force to quadruple. Not much harm at small sailboat speeds, But at fast powerboat speeds, small design differences can result in big and often dangerous problems. My suggestion is to undertake serious study or use a proven design.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's a good reason! I've been contemplating putting the engine much further forward, just in front of the cockpit. But the hull needs to be wider where the engine is for support (on the water). I think I could start curving the hull inward about the center of the engine, at about 2/3 the length of the engine would be better. Moving the point where the hull start to curve inward to the bow forward a bit wouldn't hurt the lines much, but may put too much weight in the front, even with a relatively light engine. The motorcycle engine would probably work fine there, but I was thinking something about like a Chevy Chevette 1.6L (or other small car engine, Miata maybe?) with the manual transmission. Just leave the floor shift sticking up and only use 4th (1:1, no OD in those!) and reverse. The engine would be better placed behind the driver's position, but even then the cockpit probably need to be moved forward one or two feet.
>
> I've got some photos of a twin engine yacht made in the mid 60s for cruising the Great Lakes for an AMC Canada executive. They use a pair of the old 195.6 OHV Rambler sixes (HEAVY things!) with modified automatic transmissions. One transmission ran in reverse all the time so the boat would have counter rotating props. The other trans was run in first gear ("L") all the time. At least I think it was first, I don't have the gear ratios for the old Borg-Warner auto trans. Most have a lower reverse than first, so I would assume first gear (the manual trans used in most mid 60s Ramblers has a 3.54:1 reverse and 2.61:1 first). The owner did say that it has custom props to make up for the difference in gear ratios, and that they were so close at cruising speed that the boat had no "pull". It did pull a little to one side at low speed, but that was easily offset by the throttles This gives me the idea that the MC engine may need to run at less than 1:1. Maybe an auto trans with a small car engine would be better too... at least there would be no clutch to worry about, and the torque converter increases engine torque.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@> wrote:
> >
> > And to me it shows, most importantly, about where an inboard goes.
> > Mark
> >
>

Yeah, that's a good reason! I've been contemplating putting the engine much further forward, just in front of the cockpit. But the hull needs to be wider where the engine is for support (on the water). I think I could start curving the hull inward about the center of the engine, at about 2/3 the length of the engine would be better. Moving the point where the hull start to curve inward to the bow forward a bit wouldn't hurt the lines much, but may put too much weight in the front, even with a relatively light engine. The motorcycle engine would probably work fine there, but I was thinking something about like a Chevy Chevette 1.6L (or other small car engine, Miata maybe?) with the manual transmission. Just leave the floor shift sticking up and only use 4th (1:1, no OD in those!) and reverse. The engine would be better placed behind the driver's position, but even then the cockpit probably need to be moved forward one or two feet.

I've got some photos of a twin engine yacht made in the mid 60s for cruising the Great Lakes for an AMC Canada executive. They use a pair of the old 195.6 OHV Rambler sixes (HEAVY things!) with modified automatic transmissions. One transmission ran in reverse all the time so the boat would have counter rotating props. The other trans was run in first gear ("L") all the time. At least I think it was first, I don't have the gear ratios for the old Borg-Warner auto trans. Most have a lower reverse than first, so I would assume first gear (the manual trans used in most mid 60s Ramblers has a 3.54:1 reverse and 2.61:1 first). The owner did say that it has custom props to make up for the difference in gear ratios, and that they were so close at cruising speed that the boat had no "pull". It did pull a little to one side at low speed, but that was easily offset by the throttles This gives me the idea that the MC engine may need to run at less than 1:1. Maybe an auto trans with a small car engine would be better too... at least there would be no clutch to worry about, and the torque converter increases engine torque.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> And to me it shows, most importantly, about where an inboard goes.
> Mark
>

And to me it shows, most importantly, about where an inboard goes.

Mark Albanese sent me a PDF copy of the "Firebrand" drawings. Obviously "Sneakeasy" is derived from this earlier boat. Hulls are pretty much the same. The condenser might be a good heat exchanger for a water cooled engine.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> I couldn't find any pics of a Bolger Firebrand on the web. Anyone have some they could upload to the group site or send me? "30-Odd Boats" is a bit on the expensive side just to take a look. I did buy a copy of "Boats with an Open Mind" though.
>

I couldn't find any pics of a Bolger Firebrand on the web. Anyone have some they could upload to the group site or send me? "30-Odd Boats" is a bit on the expensive side just to take a look. I did buy a copy of "Boats with an Open Mind" though.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Michael Walther <michawalth3@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, Hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. Looks like a Sneakeasy to me. Thanks, Mike
>
> --- On Thu, 11/25/10, jdmeddock <jmeddock@...> wrote:
>
> > From: jdmeddock <jmeddock@...>
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy... Firebrand
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, November 25, 2010, 9:43 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > You should look at Firebrand from 30-Odd Boats.
> > Firebrand is an inboard, shaft driven, steam powered
> > Sneakeasy-like boat.
> > I am pretty sure it is the same basic hull shape as Sneasy
> > The Firebrand foredeck is lower crowned and formed of
> > canvas stretched over a web of stringers.
> > I like the FB deck shape better than the SE foredeck (at
> > least in the 2-D drawings).
> > The FB ducktail goes the full width of the boat since it
> > doesn't need the cutout for the OB.
> > FB has a nifty flush-mounted keel cooler design that may
> > work for your inboard.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Eric <eric14850@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Bruce,
> Your Topaz is so beautiful. Painted. Steering wheel, engine and controls mounted. Not finished? But how have you resisted launching and trying it out when it is so nearly done?
> Eric
>
>

Well, the economy nailed my job, then I got a new job that involves
longer hours and a longer commute. Add to that the fact that my wife
and I bought a giant 100 year old historic house in San Francisco, so
there are more than a few "fix its" competing for my time. Plus, the
things I have been dreaming about involve some "David Gingery" style
aluminum castings connecting together bamboo struts to make cargo
bicycles. That said, I expect to get Topaz together enough for a
launch this coming summer.

Hello, Hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. Looks like a Sneakeasy to me. Thanks, Mike

--- On Thu, 11/25/10, jdmeddock <jmeddock@...> wrote:

> From: jdmeddock <jmeddock@...>
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy... Firebrand
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 25, 2010, 9:43 PM
>
>
>
> You should look at Firebrand from 30-Odd Boats.
> Firebrand is an inboard, shaft driven, steam powered
> Sneakeasy-like boat.
> I am pretty sure it is the same basic hull shape as Sneasy
> The Firebrand foredeck is lower crowned and formed of
> canvas stretched over a web of stringers.
> I like the FB deck shape better than the SE foredeck (at
> least in the 2-D drawings).
> The FB ducktail goes the full width of the boat since it
> doesn't need the cutout for the OB.
> FB has a nifty flush-mounted keel cooler design that may
> work for your inboard.
>
> If I was to increase a Sneakeasy's Beam I would give it a
> bow transom about 8"-12" wide and increase all frame widths
> the same amount. Would use a lot more plywood  though.
> Not sure how far apart the frames are on the drawings,
> might cause some problems with buttstraps when you
> crossplank the plywood. I bet the smallish bow transom
> wouldn't look too bad if you used the FB foredeck shape.
>
>
> I had a CX500 years ago, pretty nice engine.
> If you drove the prop shaft off of the rear hub instead of
> the trans output shaft you get a free gear reduction method.
>
> Google search tells me CX500 final drive ratio is 3.09:1
> That would get propshaft speeds down to reasonable levels.
> Glen-L had pretty good prices on propshaft setups when I
> last looked at that stuff.
>
> You may need to shorten the driveshaft to get the unit
> narrow enough to fit sideways in the hull. You could then
> mount the engine very softly to isolate vibrations since you
> would have the driveshaft in place and able to deal with
> mis-alignments caused by motor mount movement.
>
> I like your idea... Do your really NEED to go 20+ knots?
> A lot of expense and effort to go the extra speed above
> what a normal
> SE with 10-15 HP will do. You could do a lumberyard nail
> and glued Sneakeasy as designed pretty cheaply and use it
> for a season to see how you like it. I bet if you hung
> around the boat ramp with a Sneakeasy with no motor someone
> would clamp their OB on so you could try different HP
> motors. they may even line up to try different motors.
>
>
>
> Justin
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!  Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

It's a water cooled Honda CX500.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@...> wrote:
>
>
> What actual engine is it? A cool m.c. engine to put in a boat would be a big thumper, like an old XT or XR 500/550, and they're cut out for low revs... not to mention bullet proof. But air cooled. I guess you said water cooled?
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@> wrote:
> >
> > That's why I figured I'd probably have to run the MC engine in a lower gear and not direct drive. Th at would multiply torque (higher loading) and keep the revs up. I think the one I have is a five speed with fifth gear 1:1 (not overdrive). I'd hope to get by with running it in 4th gear, but might have to drop to 3rd.
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd love to see a motorcycle engine used in a boat but I read somewhere (and it made a lot of sense) that boat engines are designed for much higher constant loads. It seems that the design parameters for a boat engine and a motorcycle engine are at the farthest possible ends of the spectrum. Just an observation . . .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That 50-55 hp motorcycle engine is looking good right now, but the high rpm bothers me. Props don't turn that fast, so I'd have to run it in a lower gear (other than 1:1) and would probably lose some power. I'd really hate to build the boat for that small engine and it not perform that way I'd like. Of course it shouldn't be hard to mod for an outboard if the small inboard fails...
> > > >
> >
>

You should look at Firebrand from 30-Odd Boats.
Firebrand is an inboard, shaft driven, steam powered Sneakeasy-like boat.
I am pretty sure it is the same basic hull shape as Sneasy
The Firebrand foredeck is lower crowned and formed of canvas stretched over a web of stringers.
I like the FB deck shape better than the SE foredeck (at least in the 2-D drawings).
The FB ducktail goes the full width of the boat since it doesn't need the cutout for the OB.
FB has a nifty flush-mounted keel cooler design that may work for your inboard.

If I was to increase a Sneakeasy's Beam I would give it a
bow transom about 8"-12" wide and increase all frame widths the same amount. Would use a lot more plywood though.
Not sure how far apart the frames are on the drawings,
might cause some problems with buttstraps when you crossplank the plywood. I bet the smallish bow transom wouldn't look too bad if you used the FB foredeck shape.


I had a CX500 years ago, pretty nice engine.
If you drove the prop shaft off of the rear hub instead of the trans output shaft you get a free gear reduction method.
Google search tells me CX500 final drive ratio is 3.09:1
That would get propshaft speeds down to reasonable levels.
Glen-L had pretty good prices on propshaft setups when I last looked at that stuff.

You may need to shorten the driveshaft to get the unit narrow enough to fit sideways in the hull. You could then mount the engine very softly to isolate vibrations since you would have the driveshaft in place and able to deal with mis-alignments caused by motor mount movement.

I like your idea... Do your really NEED to go 20+ knots?
A lot of expense and effort to go the extra speed above what a normal
SE with 10-15 HP will do. You could do a lumberyard nail and glued Sneakeasy as designed pretty cheaply and use it for a season to see how you like it. I bet if you hung around the boat ramp with a Sneakeasy with no motor someone would clamp their OB on so you could try different HP motors. they may even line up to try different motors.



Justin

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@...> wrote:

>
> .....I guess you said water cooled?
>

Well, you can't be circulating river water through the Honda engine. It will need to have some kind of exchanger to get the heat from a closed loop with coolant appropriate for the engine's metallurgy into either the water or air.

A necessary complication.

Don

Bruce,
Your Topaz is so beautiful. Painted. Steering wheel, engine and controls mounted. Not finished? But how have you resisted launching and trying it out when it is so nearly done?
Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:22 AM, f_swygert <farna@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't find any photos of a "Topaz Spyder". I'm assuming it's the Topaz hull without a cabin, built more like a runabout?
>
>
> Yes, it is a runabout version. Seating for ten. Here are a few photos...
>
>http://flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=topaz+bolger&m=text
>
>
> and
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/topaz/
>

Possibly. That shouldn't be hard though, engine and trans oil are generally the same in small MC engines. It is in this one. Just need to figure out how to remote the oil filter and install a small cooler in-line...

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Roger M. Derby" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
>
> You might end up needing some sort of oil cooler for the transmission. ???
>
> Roger
>
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 12:14 PM, f_swygert wrote:
>
> > That's why I figured I'd probably have to run the MC engine in a lower gear and not direct drive. Th at would multiply torque (higher loading) and keep the revs up. I think the one I have is a five speed with fifth gear 1:1 (not overdrive). I'd hope to get by with running it in 4th gear, but might have to drop to 3rd.
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd love to see a motorcycle engine used in a boat but I read somewhere (and it made a lot of sense) that boat engines are designed for much higher constant loads. IT seems that the design parameters for a boat engine and a motorcycle engine are at the farthest possible ends of the spectrum. Just an observation . . .
> > >

What actual engine is it? A cool m.c. engine to put in a boat would be a big thumper, like an old XT or XR 500/550, and they're cut out for low revs... not to mention bullet proof. But air cooled. I guess you said water cooled?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> That's why I figured I'd probably have to run the MC engine in a lower gear and not direct drive. Th at would multiply torque (higher loading) and keep the revs up. I think the one I have is a five speed with fifth gear 1:1 (not overdrive). I'd hope to get by with running it in 4th gear, but might have to drop to 3rd.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to see a motorcycle engine used in a boat but I read somewhere (and it made a lot of sense) that boat engines are designed for much higher constant loads. IT seems that the design parameters for a boat engine and a motorcycle engine are at the farthest possible ends of the spectrum. Just an observation . . .
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > That 50-55 hp motorcycle engine is looking good right now, but the high rpm bothers me. Props don't turn that fast, so I'd have to run it in a lower gear (other than 1:1) and would probably lose some power. I'd really hate to build the boat for that small engine and it not perform that way I'd like. Of course it shouldn't be hard to mod for an outboard if the small inboard fails...
> > >
>

The whole idea is to "roll your own" and have a good time doing it. If the MC powerplant doesn't work out, you still have the boat, and you go on to the next thing you want to try. That may be Briggs & Stratton or a Kubota diesel, or Subaru flat 4. Who knows? All part of the fun.

Don

You might end up needing some sort of oil cooler for the transmission.  ???

That's why I figured I'd probably have to run the MC engine in a lower gear and not direct drive. Th at would multiply torque (higher loading) and keep the revs up. I think the one I have is a five speed with fifth gear 1:1 (not overdrive). I'd hope to get by with running it in 4th gear, but might have to drop to 3rd.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@...> wrote:
>
> I'd love to see a motorcycle engine used in a boat but I read somewhere (and it made a lot of sense) that boat engines are designed for much higher constant loads. IT seems that the design parameters for a boat engine and a motorcycle engine are at the farthest possible ends of the spectrum. Just an observation . . .
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That 50-55 hp motorcycle engine is looking good right now, but the high rpm bothers me. Props don't turn that fast, so I'd have to run it in a lower gear (other than 1:1) and would probably lose some power. I'd really hate to build the boat for that small engine and it not perform that way I'd like. Of course it shouldn't be hard to mod for an outboard if the small inboard fails...
> >

Hi, I say Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. My bookmarks were lost in computer problem & this is exactly what I meant & was looking for, you most generous, kind & wonderful person you.

--- On Sun, 11/21/10, sirdarnell <sirdarnell@...> wrote:

> From: sirdarnell <sirdarnell@...>
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Modified Sneakeasy...
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 21, 2010, 5:32 PM
> Standard Sneakeasy:
>
>http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Sneakeasy/Sneakeasy.htm
>
> Modified Sneakeasy, as detailed in Boats With and Open
> Mind:
>
>http://www.carlsondesign.com/sneakesy.html
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com,
> Michael Walther <michawalth3@...> wrote:
> >
> >  Why Modify? Because nothing is ever perfect. Also,
> mods I was referring to were mostly cosmetic such as wind
> shields, cockpit arrangement, possible forward cockpit and
> for a major change to make it truly like the original
> vintage "runabouts" it emulates a mid engine would be really
> cool. As I said most are truly beautiful with their minor
> modifications. And again does anyone have the link to the
> sneakeasys. Thanks,   Mike
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!  Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

I'd love to see a motorcycle engine used in a boat but I read somewhere (and it made a lot of sense) that boat engines are designed for much higher constant loads. IT seems that the design parameters for a boat engine and a motorcycle engine are at the farthest possible ends of the spectrum. Just an observation . . .

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> I looked at that one too -- WAY different! As someone pointed out, a Sneakeasy modified for more power won't really be a Sneakeasy any more, and it will weigh more as 1/4" plywood won't be enough. I'm not concerned about additional weight. The more I think about it the more I believe I'll just widen it a bit and use 3/8" in stead of 1/4" plywood -- except for the bottom, which would be 3/4". Not sure about the inboard idea, though the water cooled 500 cc motorcycle engine is still intriguing.
>
> In "Boats With an Open Mind" Bolger does mention that the Sneakeasy hull is capable of 50-60 mph. Page 84, first paragraph, last line: "She's quite capable of making 50 or 60 m.p.h., and it wouldn't take Bootlegger's Hispano-Suiza V-8 to make her do it..."
>
> Yes, I read the cautionary lines on page 83, last line, and page 84, first line, also: "But, nobody should trust a hull like this when it's going really fast. Banking in too sharp a turn, going to fast, it will break loose without warning, trip, and roll on its side if not all the way over."
>
> That's why I want to use the box keel and make the boat a bit wider. But just keep it straight at high speed and it should be fine. Around 30-32 with a 35 hp outboard should be good though, so a 40 hp outboard should do all I would want.
>
> That 50-55 hp motorcycle engine is looking good right now, but the high rpm bothers me. Props don't turn that fast, so I'd have to run it in a lower gear (other than 1:1) and would probably lose some power. I'd really hate to build the boat for that small engine and it not perform that way I'd like. Of course it shouldn't be hard to mod for an outboard if the small inboard fails...
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I stumbled onto the MAIB clip covering Topaz in the files. I'd
> > remembered talk of 50 - 75 hp, pulling water skiers and rumors of a
> > wide stern version. Hah! Even without the cabin, this 2500 pound gem
> > is more than a short leap up from Sneakeasy.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:22 AM, f_swygert <farna@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> I can't find any photos of a "Topaz Spyder". I'm assuming it's the Topaz hull without a cabin, built more like a runabout?

Yes, it is a runabout version. Seating for ten. Here are a few photos...

http://flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=topaz+bolger&m=text


and

http://hallman.org/bolger/topaz/

I can't find any photos of a "Topaz Spyder". I'm assuming it's the Topaz hull without a cabin, built more like a runabout?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I stumbled onto the MAIB clip covering Topaz in the files. I'd
> > remembered talk of 50 - 75 hp, pulling water skiers and rumors of a
> > wide stern version. Hah! Even without the cabin, this 2500 pound gem
> > is more than a short leap up from Sneakeasy.
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> PCB recommended the use of a 90 HP on my Topaz Sypder, to allow use
> pulling a water skier. "real life" has slowed down finishing my
> build, but looking close at it full size I am convinced it is an
> awesome boat.
>

I looked at that one too -- WAY different! As someone pointed out, a Sneakeasy modified for more power won't really be a Sneakeasy any more, and it will weigh more as 1/4" plywood won't be enough. I'm not concerned about additional weight. The more I think about it the more I believe I'll just widen it a bit and use 3/8" in stead of 1/4" plywood -- except for the bottom, which would be 3/4". Not sure about the inboard idea, though the water cooled 500 cc motorcycle engine is still intriguing.

In "Boats With an Open Mind" Bolger does mention that the Sneakeasy hull is capable of 50-60 mph. Page 84, first paragraph, last line: "She's quite capable of making 50 or 60 m.p.h., and it wouldn't take Bootlegger's Hispano-Suiza V-8 to make her do it..."

Yes, I read the cautionary lines on page 83, last line, and page 84, first line, also: "But, nobody should trust a hull like this when it's going really fast. Banking in too sharp a turn, going to fast, it will break loose without warning, trip, and roll on its side if not all the way over."

That's why I want to use the box keel and make the boat a bit wider. But just keep it straight at high speed and it should be fine. Around 30-32 with a 35 hp outboard should be good though, so a 40 hp outboard should do all I would want.

That 50-55 hp motorcycle engine is looking good right now, but the high rpm bothers me. Props don't turn that fast, so I'd have to run it in a lower gear (other than 1:1) and would probably lose some power. I'd really hate to build the boat for that small engine and it not perform that way I'd like. Of course it shouldn't be hard to mod for an outboard if the small inboard fails...

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I stumbled onto the MAIB clip covering Topaz in the files. I'd
> remembered talk of 50 - 75 hp, pulling water skiers and rumors of a
> wide stern version. Hah! Even without the cabin, this 2500 pound gem
> is more than a short leap up from Sneakeasy.
>
> Mark
>

Standard Sneakeasy:

http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Sneakeasy/Sneakeasy.htm

Modified Sneakeasy, as detailed in Boats With and Open Mind:

http://www.carlsondesign.com/sneakesy.html

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Michael Walther <michawalth3@...> wrote:
>
>  Why Modify? Because nothing is ever perfect. Also, mods I was referring to were mostly cosmetic such as wind shields, cockpit arrangement, possible forward cockpit and for a major change to make it truly like the original vintage "runabouts" it emulates a mid engine would be really cool. As I said most are truly beautiful with their minor modifications. And again does anyone have the link to the sneakeasys. Thanks,   Mike
>

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Well, I stumbled onto the MAIB clip covering Topaz in the files. I'd
> remembered talk of 50 - 75 hp, pulling water skiers and rumors of a
> wide stern version. Hah! Even without the cabin, this 2500 pound gem
> is more than a short leap up from Sneakeasy.
>
> Mark

PCB recommended the use of a 90 HP on my Topaz Sypder, to allow use
pulling a water skier. "real life" has slowed down finishing my
build, but looking close at it full size I am convinced it is an
awesome boat.

Well, I stumbled onto the MAIB clip covering Topaz in the files. I'd
remembered talk of 50 - 75 hp, pulling water skiers and rumors of a
wide stern version. Hah! Even without the cabin, this 2500 pound gem
is more than a short leap up from Sneakeasy.

Mark

One thing more to think about is how much heavier to build it. 1/4"
ply just won't be made for this.

On Nov 20, 2010, at 7:15 PM, f_swygert wrote:
> I want to cruise at 20-25 mph, not top out at that speed (30-35 top
> speed).
>
> I may just leave it at widening the hull by 8-12" and sticking with
> the box keel and an outboard. Lots to think about between now and
> when I start. I like to have a concrete plan before starting, and
> getting different opinions concerning my ideas is a good first step.
>

This hadn't attached. Trying again. + These

Who can say how well the Topaz Spyder fits this bill?

On Nov 20, 2010, at 7:15 PM, f_swygert wrote:
> A bit more power and better handling at speed is really what I'm
> looking for, and a little less "chummy" cockpit. I want to cruise
> at 20-25 mph, not top out at that speed (30-35 top speed).

What got cut off my first post was "I'd like to build something more along the lines of a Hacker, but that's a bit of a daunting project. I don't want a project that will go one for much more than 12-18 months, 24 at the most."

The reasons I want to modify the Sneakeasy is because it's a simple yet elegant design that's easy to build, but doesn't quite suit my desires in a couple areas. A bit more power and better handling at speed is really what I'm looking for, and a little less "chummy" cockpit. I want to cruise at 20-25 mph, not top out at that speed (30-35 top speed).

I may just leave it at widening the hull by 8-12" and sticking with the box keel and an outboard. Lots to think about between now and when I start. I like to have a concrete plan before starting, and getting different opinions concerning my ideas is a good first step.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, ALAN WRIDEOUT <arideout@...> wrote:
>
> I would have to agree. Bolger has even said this himself many times in print. If
> you choose to alter the design you have to accept the consequences. His
> catalogue is large enough to satisfy all recreational marine applications.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Harry James <welshman@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 7:55:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Modified Sneakeasy...
>
> Â
> What is it about the Sneakeasy that makes people want to change it?? My
> experiance is riding in Fritz Funk's Sneakeasy.. I helped him launch it
> and rode in it that first day. I have ridden with him around the local
> area with a 15HP engine and 4 Adult passengers. It is a truly amazing
> design in how it feels underway, any changes made will make it something
> less than what it is. The max horesepower I would put on it would be 25
> and engine weight would be an issue at that HP. If I was going to build
> one for myself then I would probably put the 18 hp Nissan on it.
>
> If you want something wider with more power than buy plans for a design
> that has that. Changing a Bolger design is never a good idea and for
> sure I would be strongly against changing what I consider to be a truly
> great design in the Sneakeasy.
>
> This wasn't meant personally in any way, you just pushed a rant button.
> By the way I wouldn't bother with the cutwater version, the standard
> version works great in a short chop just the way it is.
>
> Harry James
> Juneau
>
> On 11/19/2010 7:48 AM, f_swygert wrote:
> > I'm new here but have been pouring over the posts on the Sneakwasy. Probably
> >won't start until late 2011/early 2012 (if the world doesn't start falling apart
> >or something...;> ) -- have to get my Jeep truck built first!
> >
> > I see that most don't like modifications of the Bolger plans. What I'm looking
> >for is something easy to build that would be fun on an inland lake. The
> >Sneakeasy fits most of the bill, especially the box keel design. I'm a good
> >enough carpenter/fabricator to build from the on-line plan views and notes in
> >"Boats With an Open Mind" (just bought that), with "assistance" from some of the
> >build progress web sites.
> >
> > My idea is to widen the hull a bit (by a foot) and strengthen (3/4" ply on
> >bottom, 1/2" on sides, and maybe add chines) to take more power. I'm thinking a
> >40 hp outboard or a small inboard. Here's a link to pics of a 20 hp industrial
> >engine used as an inboard in a Sneakeasy
> >(http://4dw.net/cosailor/sneakeasy.htm). What I have in mind is a Honda CX500
> >motorcycle engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series)that develops
> >~50 hp at 9500 rpm -- but I wouldn't expect to cruise at nearly that high a rpm,
> >more like 4500-5000. Even then I could always run it in say 4th gear (I think
> >it's a five speed with 5th as 1:1, will have to check) to reduce rpm and
> >increase torque. Only problem would be no reverse, but that could be either
> >electric or use the Kitchen Rudder as the 20 hp inboard fellow did. A small car
> >engine is another option, something very small in the 1.0L -1.2L --- think MG
> >Midget or Geo Metro three cylinder. If it was easy to adapt a rear drive trans
> >to the little 50-55 hp 89-91 Metro three cylinder that would probably be ideal.
> >With a car engine I'd think moving the cockpit forward a foot or two with the
> >engine right behind the front seat would be the way to go. A Subaru engine would
> >be nice and compact, but at 65-70 hp a bit large. Maybe the CX500 is the best
> >choice...
> >
> > One other thing I was thinking about was angling the bottom up from the box
> >keel out to the edges by about two inches to improve high speed turning
> >characteristics. Also giving the hull a little flare toward the center then
> >pulling it back in from about the center toward the tails by a couple inches on
> >each side.
> >
> > I know this all changes some of the handling characteristics of the boat and a
> >bit of the appearance. Should still look good and handle well. I would be
> >interested in opinions! I haven't done any sketches yet. Would love to build
> >something more along the lines

This too contrasty pic is reproduced is the article on Tennessee, 'Poor Man's Cigarette,' from SBJ. There's another IIRC in30-Odd Boats.

Certainly feel free to build what you want, but the designer would rather you not call it by the designer's name for the boat.

Obviously, do what you wants to do, but does anyone have that funny story Bolger told? It goes something like this, "Hi Mr. Bolger, you will be happy to know I am building your so-and-do! I have lengthened it a bit, narrowed it a little, increased the freeboard, doubled the horsepower, halved the scantlings, and added a second story on the house. How do you think she will perform?" His reply is something along the lines of having never designed anything even remotely similar, he just wouldn't know."

The Sneakeasy is a dangerous boat at high speed and high horsepower. It is very light, and narrow, with a low moment of inertia and a nice nose and sharp edge to provoke a roll. I nearly rolled mine poking its bow into a powerboat wake. OK - not so smart - but I got lucky. Scared the bejeezas out of me.

Gregg

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> > What is it about the Sneakeasy that makes people want to change it??
>
> I ditto Harry.
>
> This applies to most other Bolger designs too. Considering that the
> builder is the owner and funder, certainly they have the right to
> modify anything and everything. Still, I would guess that 90% of the
> builder changes would end up making things worse, or more expensive,
> or both. Bolger was an extremely experienced boat designer, and it is
> daring for most of us to modify his designs and think they will
> improve things.
>

MR. Bolger in Boats With An Open Mind said that the Wyoming could be widen with the modified Sneakeasy's box keel/cutwater bottom, so widening the modified Sneakeasy should work. The higher scantlings should allow for more engine, but not too much as it is still a flat bottomed boat and the box keel is only 1/2" deeper than the skid in the original Sneakeasy.

David

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "f_swygert" <farna@...> wrote:
>
> I'm new here but have been pouring over the posts on the Sneakwasy. Probably won't start until late 2011/early 2012 (if the world doesn't start falling apart or something...;> ) -- have to get my Jeep truck built first!
>
> I see that most don't like modifications of the Bolger plans. What I'm looking for is something easy to build that would be fun on an inland lake. The Sneakeasy fits most of the bill, especially the box keel design. I'm a good enough carpenter/fabricator to build from the on-line plan views and notes in "Boats With an Open Mind" (just bought that), with "assistance" from some of the build progress web sites.
>
> My idea is to widen the hull a bit (by a foot) and strengthen (3/4" ply on bottom, 1/2" on sides, and maybe add chines) to take more power. I'm thinking a 40 hp outboard or a small inboard. Here's a link to pics of a 20 hp industrial engine used as an inboard in a Sneakeasy (http://4dw.net/cosailor/sneakeasy.htm). What I have in mind is a Honda CX500 motorcycle engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series)that develops ~50 hp at 9500 rpm -- but I wouldn't expect to cruise at nearly that high a rpm, more like 4500-5000. Even then I could always run it in say 4th gear (I think it's a five speed with 5th as 1:1, will have to check) to reduce rpm and increase torque. Only problem would be no reverse, but that could be either electric or use the Kitchen Rudder as the 20 hp inboard fellow did. A small car engine is another option, something very small in the 1.0L -1.2L --- think MG Midget or Geo Metro three cylinder. If it was easy to adapt a rear drive trans to the little 50-55 hp 89-91 Metro three cylinder that would probably be ideal. With a car engine I'd think moving the cockpit forward a foot or two with the engine right behind the front seat would be the way to go. A Subaru engine would be nice and compact, but at 65-70 hp a bit large. Maybe the CX500 is the best choice...
>
> One other thing I was thinking about was angling the bottom up from the box keel out to the edges by about two inches to improve high speed turning characteristics. Also giving the hull a little flare toward the center then pulling it back in from about the center toward the tails by a couple inches on each side.
>
> I know this all changes some of the handling characteristics of the boat and a bit of the appearance. Should still look good and handle well. I would be interested in opinions! I haven't done any sketches yet. Would love to build something more along the lines
>

> What is it about the Sneakeasy that makes people want to change it??

I ditto Harry.

This applies to most other Bolger designs too. Considering that the
builder is the owner and funder, certainly they have the right to
modify anything and everything. Still, I would guess that 90% of the
builder changes would end up making things worse, or more expensive,
or both. Bolger was an extremely experienced boat designer, and it is
daring for most of us to modify his designs and think they will
improve things.

What is it about the Sneakeasy that makes people want to change it?? My
experiance is riding in Fritz Funk's Sneakeasy.. I helped him launch it
and rode in it that first day. I have ridden with him around the local
area with a 15HP engine and 4 Adult passengers. It is a truly amazing
design in how it feels underway, any changes made will make it something
less than what it is. The max horesepower I would put on it would be 25
and engine weight would be an issue at that HP. If I was going to build
one for myself then I would probably put the 18 hp Nissan on it.

If you want something wider with more power than buy plans for a design
that has that. Changing a Bolger design is never a good idea and for
sure I would be strongly against changing what I consider to be a truly
great design in the Sneakeasy.

This wasn't meant personally in any way, you just pushed a rant button.
By the way I wouldn't bother with the cutwater version, the standard
version works great in a short chop just the way it is.

Harry James
Juneau

On 11/19/2010 7:48 AM, f_swygert wrote:
> I'm new here but have been pouring over the posts on the Sneakwasy. Probably won't start until late 2011/early 2012 (if the world doesn't start falling apart or something...;> ) -- have to get my Jeep truck built first!
>
> I see that most don't like modifications of the Bolger plans. What I'm looking for is something easy to build that would be fun on an inland lake. The Sneakeasy fits most of the bill, especially the box keel design. I'm a good enough carpenter/fabricator to build from the on-line plan views and notes in "Boats With an Open Mind" (just bought that), with "assistance" from some of the build progress web sites.
>
> My idea is to widen the hull a bit (by a foot) and strengthen (3/4" ply on bottom, 1/2" on sides, and maybe add chines) to take more power. I'm thinking a 40 hp outboard or a small inboard. Here's a link to pics of a 20 hp industrial engine used as an inboard in a Sneakeasy (http://4dw.net/cosailor/sneakeasy.htm). What I have in mind is a Honda CX500 motorcycle engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series)that develops ~50 hp at 9500 rpm -- but I wouldn't expect to cruise at nearly that high a rpm, more like 4500-5000. Even then I could always run it in say 4th gear (I think it's a five speed with 5th as 1:1, will have to check) to reduce rpm and increase torque. Only problem would be no reverse, but that could be either electric or use the Kitchen Rudder as the 20 hp inboard fellow did. A small car engine is another option, something very small in the 1.0L -1.2L --- think MG Midget or Geo Metro three cylinder. If it was easy to adapt a rear drive trans to the little 50-55 hp 89-91 Metro three cylinder that would probably be ideal. With a car engine I'd think moving the cockpit forward a foot or two with the engine right behind the front seat would be the way to go. A Subaru engine would be nice and compact, but at 65-70 hp a bit large. Maybe the CX500 is the best choice...
>
> One other thing I was thinking about was angling the bottom up from the box keel out to the edges by about two inches to improve high speed turning characteristics. Also giving the hull a little flare toward the center then pulling it back in from about the center toward the tails by a couple inches on each side.
>
> I know this all changes some of the handling characteristics of the boat and a bit of the appearance. Should still look good and handle well. I would be interested in opinions! I haven't done any sketches yet. Would love to build something more along the lines
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi All, Just to let you know there are lots of slightly modified & a couple really nice Sneakeasy's out there. I no longer have the links to them but someone here I'm sure does & hope they'll post it for both of us. PLEASE. Thanks, Mike

--- On Fri, 11/19/10, f_swygert <farna@...> wrote:

> From: f_swygert <farna@...>
> Subject: [bolger] Modified Sneakeasy...
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 4:48 PM
> I'm new here but have been pouring
> over the posts on the Sneakwasy. Probably won't start until
> late 2011/early 2012 (if the world doesn't start falling
> apart or something...;> ) -- have to get my Jeep truck
> built first!
>
> I see that most don't like modifications of the Bolger
> plans. What I'm looking for is something easy to build that
> would be fun on an inland lake. The Sneakeasy fits most of
> the bill, especially the box keel design. I'm a good enough
> carpenter/fabricator to build from the on-line plan views
> and notes in "Boats With an Open Mind" (just bought that),
> with "assistance" from some of the build progress web sites.
>
>
> My idea is to widen the hull a bit (by a foot) and
> strengthen (3/4" ply on bottom, 1/2" on sides, and maybe add
> chines) to take more power. I'm thinking a 40 hp outboard or
> a small inboard. Here's a link to pics of a 20 hp industrial
> engine used as an inboard in a Sneakeasy (http://4dw.net/cosailor/sneakeasy.htm). What I have in
> mind is a Honda CX500 motorcycle engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series)that
> develops ~50 hp at 9500 rpm -- but I wouldn't expect to
> cruise at nearly that high a rpm, more like 4500-5000. Even
> then I could always run it in say 4th gear (I think it's a
> five speed with 5th as 1:1, will have to check) to reduce
> rpm and increase torque. Only problem would be no reverse,
> but that could be either electric or use the Kitchen Rudder
> as the 20 hp inboard fellow did. A small car engine is
> another option, something very small in the 1.0L -1.2L ---
> think MG Midget or Geo Metro three cylinder. If it was easy
> to adapt a rear drive trans to the little 50-55 hp 89-91
> Metro three cylinder that would probably be ideal. With a
> car engine I'd think moving the cockpit forward a foot or
> two with the engine right behind the front seat would be the
> way to go. A Subaru engine would be nice and compact, but at
> 65-70 hp a bit large. Maybe the CX500 is the best choice...
>
> One other thing I was thinking about was angling the bottom
> up from the box keel out to the edges by about two inches to
> improve high speed turning characteristics. Also giving the
> hull a little flare toward the center then pulling it back
> in from about the center toward the tails by a couple inches
> on each side.
>
> I know this all changes some of the handling
> characteristics of the boat and a bit of the appearance.
> Should still look good and handle well. I would be
> interested in opinions! I haven't done any sketches yet.
> Would love to build something more along the lines
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!  Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

I'm new here but have been pouring over the posts on the Sneakwasy. Probably won't start until late 2011/early 2012 (if the world doesn't start falling apart or something...;> ) -- have to get my Jeep truck built first!

I see that most don't like modifications of the Bolger plans. What I'm looking for is something easy to build that would be fun on an inland lake. The Sneakeasy fits most of the bill, especially the box keel design. I'm a good enough carpenter/fabricator to build from the on-line plan views and notes in "Boats With an Open Mind" (just bought that), with "assistance" from some of the build progress web sites.

My idea is to widen the hull a bit (by a foot) and strengthen (3/4" ply on bottom, 1/2" on sides, and maybe add chines) to take more power. I'm thinking a 40 hp outboard or a small inboard. Here's a link to pics of a 20 hp industrial engine used as an inboard in a Sneakeasy (http://4dw.net/cosailor/sneakeasy.htm). What I have in mind is a Honda CX500 motorcycle engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series)that develops ~50 hp at 9500 rpm -- but I wouldn't expect to cruise at nearly that high a rpm, more like 4500-5000. Even then I could always run it in say 4th gear (I think it's a five speed with 5th as 1:1, will have to check) to reduce rpm and increase torque. Only problem would be no reverse, but that could be either electric or use the Kitchen Rudder as the 20 hp inboard fellow did. A small car engine is another option, something very small in the 1.0L -1.2L --- think MG Midget or Geo Metro three cylinder. If it was easy to adapt a rear drive trans to the little 50-55 hp 89-91 Metro three cylinder that would probably be ideal. With a car engine I'd think moving the cockpit forward a foot or two with the engine right behind the front seat would be the way to go. A Subaru engine would be nice and compact, but at 65-70 hp a bit large. Maybe the CX500 is the best choice...

One other thing I was thinking about was angling the bottom up from the box keel out to the edges by about two inches to improve high speed turning characteristics. Also giving the hull a little flare toward the center then pulling it back in from about the center toward the tails by a couple inches on each side.

I know this all changes some of the handling characteristics of the boat and a bit of the appearance. Should still look good and handle well. I would be interested in opinions! I haven't done any sketches yet. Would love to build something more along the lines