Re: Bolger Sneakeasy

>
> I have both a Sneakeasy I built in box keel version with a 25, and a heavier 31' "version" with a shallow V and a 70. The first will do 22-25 kts - a pretty nice clip improvable with a really slick bottom due to lots of wetted surface. The latter will do about 37 kt, but it's pretty heavily framed - actually, more frames - and a more stout construction.
>
> Both of these boats could be rolled by stuffing the bow into a wave or a boat wake at just the wrong instant while going fast and turning the wheel. The nose would be pushed to one side and continuing momentum trying to trip the boat over its chine - exactly like a sailboat broach.
>
> I've scared myself once playing in a cruiser wake - which was enough - though in general they are safe boats and I sometimes stick the nose in a wake for fun. The 2-stroke 70 weighs 260 lbs - almost double - and it's not huge, but it's too much motor for the Sneakeasy both dynamically and structurally.
>
> Long and skinny hulls like the Sneakeasy are easily driven, most significantly because they are "planing" at rest - i.e. they don't step up on plane - they just go faster and faster.
>
> The Sneakeasy is NOT a tender boat - it's very stiff, because it's very long but also light weight. You have a *very* long chine to sink when you step on the gunnel. But, dynamically, it's a different story.
>
>http://carlsondesign.com/projects/loon-%E2%80%94-picknick-boat/

> Gregg Carlson
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> Nobody suggested that, but the weight issue is the most important
> aspect of the issue at hand. The Sneak has to be light to get the
> famous level running. The two who've switched to either battery power
> or an inboard move the weights a good deal for'rd.
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2012, at 3:14 PM, apraphett777 wrote:
>
> > Most of the Bolger boats I have built the scantlings are on the
> > lightish side I have grown to love this about said designs the
> > easier a boat is to launch...... if the boats scantlings were
> > "beefed up to support the extra weight the balance and handling etc
> > would not be the same as designed if you want to experiment put a
> > motor in a Gloucester gull and take video let us see the vid and
> > let us know how this turns out for ya SMH
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot McPherson <scot.mcpherson@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Forgive me for this Eric, but your response is extraordinarily
> > aggressive and offensive. I had other words which I chose to not
> > write in response, but I want you to clearly understand I am
> > thinking them.
> > >
> > > Read my post again, it was a question begging enlightenment and
> > begging education, not a proposal that it should be ok. I am
> > thoroughly insulted by you and your message, but I guess I
> > shouldn't be because it isn't me that jumped off the stupid cliff.
> > >
> > > And just so we are VERY CLEAR I didn't mean any of that...but
> > that is what your message sounded like to me. I know you were
> > trying the help, but....
> > >
> > >
> > > Please take it down a notch.
> > >
> > > Maybe you can take the time to answer my actual questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks mate.
> > >
> > > Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
> > > Old Lyme, CT
> > > Le Claire, IA
> > >http://www.linkedin.com/in/scotmcpherson
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:33 PM, "Eric" <eric14850@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phil Bolger has designed a goodly number of boats that are
> > superb at doing what they were designed to do. Taken with the
> > excellence of the design, some people insist upon changing the
> > design in ways that will decrease its ability to do what it was
> > designed to do well, or make modifications meant to have the design
> > do something outside the design parameters of the design. Phil
> > Bolger would have none of it when clients asked him to do such
> > things, and he knew what he was doing. We amateur builders do not.
> > Experimenting with a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars of
> > materials for our own entertainment is one thing. More substantial
> > investment is fool-hearty.
> > > >
> > > > More fool-hearty still is to put sixty horse power on a
> > Sneakeasy AGAINST THE VERY SPECIFIC WARNINGS OF THE DESIGNER THAT
> > DOING SO WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS. It is insulting to do so. Worse,
> > if it is done, it will slander Phil Bolger's good name when the
> > predicted disaster happens and it is reported that it was a Bolger
> > design, which it will not be.
> > > >
> > > > Building such a boat and using it would be a suicide project.
> > As such life insurance should be purchased to take care of those
> > left behind. And of course no one else should ever be allowed on
> > the boat. If anyone does build such an abomination, please post
> > before and after disaster pictures of SUICIDE. Well, I guess your
> > heirs will have to post the after pictures. Perhaps it will be
> > adequate warning to others not to do foolish things with superb
> > designs.
> > > >
> > > > There are excellent designs for high speed boats that will make
> > good use of sixty horse power, and will be no more trouble or
> > expense to build than a sneakeasyish abomination intended to make
> > use of sixty hp.
> > > >
> > > > The secret to happy boating is to decide what you want to do,
> > and then find the design that embodies the qualities you most
> > desire in a boat. No boat can be all things. Not in the real world,
> > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Irving" <gary9alan9@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like a good answer. I would only add that the transom
> > would need additional bracing for the extra weight at the engine
> > mount, gunwhales and chine to transfer the force to the hull.
> > Please concider the 'ride' in a flat bottom boat going 60mph. Thick
> > seat cushion, mouth guard and knee pads come to my mind and come to
> > a near stop to make a sharp turn. Fast boats have Vee bottoms and
> > stepped chines/lift strakes for the purpose of stability at speed.
> > Gary
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson
> > <scot.mcpherson@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much
> > smaller boats seem to be
> > > > > > > powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it
> > really a matter of
> > > > > > > too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds
> > and torques?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I
> > could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would
> > that be?
> > > > > > Let's see what I can remember.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really
> > good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light
> > weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to
> > toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big
> > heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large
> > part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight
> > issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5
> > HP outboard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP
> > engine
> > > > > > being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate
> > that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the
> > right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than
> > the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted
> > a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy
> > design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are
> > images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put
> > a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you
> > would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed -
> > but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that
> > was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element
> > of danger involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder
> > if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-
> > speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Derek
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot McPherson <scot.mcpherson@...> wrote:
>
> Forgive me for this Eric, but your response is extraordinarily aggressive and offensive. I had other words which I chose to not write in response, but I want you to clearly understand I am thinking them.
>
> Read my post again, it was a question begging enlightenment and begging education, not a proposal that it should be ok. I am thoroughly insulted by you and your message, but I guess I shouldn't be because it isn't me that jumped off the stupid cliff.
>
> And just so we are VERY CLEAR I didn't mean any of that...but that is what your message sounded like to me. I know you were trying the help, but....
>
>
> Please take it down a notch.
>
> Maybe you can take the time to answer my actual questions.
>
> Thanks mate.
>
> Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
> Old Lyme, CT
> Le Claire, IA
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/scotmcpherson
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:33 PM, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> > Phil Bolger has designed a goodly number of boats that are superb at doing what they were designed to do. Taken with the excellence of the design, some people insist upon changing the design in ways that will decrease its ability to do what it was designed to do well, or make modifications meant to have the design do something outside the design parameters of the design. Phil Bolger would have none of it when clients asked him to do such things, and he knew what he was doing. We amateur builders do not. Experimenting with a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars of materials for our own entertainment is one thing. More substantial investment is fool-hearty.
> >
> > More fool-hearty still is to put sixty horse power on a Sneakeasy AGAINST THE VERY SPECIFIC WARNINGS OF THE DESIGNER THAT DOING SO WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS. It is insulting to do so. Worse, if it is done, it will slander Phil Bolger's good name when the predicted disaster happens and it is reported that it was a Bolger design, which it will not be.
> >
> > Building such a boat and using it would be a suicide project. As such life insurance should be purchased to take care of those left behind. And of course no one else should ever be allowed on the boat. If anyone does build such an abomination, please post before and after disaster pictures of SUICIDE. Well, I guess your heirs will have to post the after pictures. Perhaps it will be adequate warning to others not to do foolish things with superb designs.
> >
> > There are excellent designs for high speed boats that will make good use of sixty horse power, and will be no more trouble or expense to build than a sneakeasyish abomination intended to make use of sixty hp.
> >
> > The secret to happy boating is to decide what you want to do, and then find the design that embodies the qualities you most desire in a boat. No boat can be all things. Not in the real world, anyway.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Irving" <gary9alan9@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good answer. I would only add that the transom would need additional bracing for the extra weight at the engine mount, gunwhales and chine to transfer the force to the hull. Please concider the 'ride' in a flat bottom boat going 60mph. Thick seat cushion, mouth guard and knee pads come to my mind and come to a near stop to make a sharp turn. Fast boats have Vee bottoms and stepped chines/lift strakes for the purpose of stability at speed. Gary
> > >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> > > > > powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> > > > > too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would that be?
> > > > Let's see what I can remember.
> > > >
> > > > Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5 HP outboard.
> > > >
> > > > He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP engine
> > > > being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
> > > >
> > > > Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
> > > >
> > > > The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed - but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element of danger involved.
> > > >
> > > > There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

 

Phil Bolger has designed a goodly number of boats that are superb at doing what they were designed to do. Taken with the excellence of the design, some people insist upon changing the design in ways that will decrease its ability to do what it was designed to do well, or make modifications meant to have the design do something outside the design parameters of the design. Phil Bolger would have none of it when clients asked him to do such things, and he knew what he was doing. We amateur builders do not. Experimenting with a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars of materials for our own entertainment is one thing. More substantial investment is fool-hearty.

More fool-hearty still is to put sixty horse power on a Sneakeasy AGAINST THE VERY SPECIFIC WARNINGS OF THE DESIGNER THAT DOING SO WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS. It is insulting to do so. Worse, if it is done, it will slander Phil Bolger's good name when the predicted disaster happens and it is reported that it was a Bolger design, which it will not be.

Building such a boat and using it would be a suicide project. As such life insurance should be purchased to take care of those left behind. And of course no one else should ever be allowed on the boat. If anyone does build such an abomination, please post before and after disaster pictures of SUICIDE. Well, I guess your heirs will have to post the after pictures. Perhaps it will be adequate warning to others not to do foolish things with superb designs.

There are excellent designs for high speed boats that will make good use of sixty horse power, and will be no more trouble or expense to build than a sneakeasyish abomination intended to make use of sixty hp.

The secret to happy boating is to decide what you want to do, and then find the design that embodies the qualities you most desire in a boat. No boat can be all things. Not in the real world, anyway.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Irving" <gary9alan9@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good answer. I would only add that the transom would need additional bracing for the extra weight at the engine mount, gunwhales and chine to transfer the force to the hull. Please concider the 'ride' in a flat bottom boat going 60mph. Thick seat cushion, mouth guard and knee pads come to my mind and come to a near stop to make a sharp turn. Fast boats have Vee bottoms and stepped chines/lift strakes for the purpose of stability at speed. Gary
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> > > powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
> > >
> > > I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> > > too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would that be?
> > Let's see what I can remember.
> >
> > Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5 HP outboard.
> >
> > He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP engine
> > being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
> >
> > Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
> >
> > The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed - but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element of danger involved.
> >
> > There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
> >
> > -Derek
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Irving" <gary9alan9@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good answer. I would only add that the transom would need additional bracing for the extra weight at the engine mount, gunwhales and chine to transfer the force to the hull. Please concider the 'ride' in a flat bottom boat going 60mph. Thick seat cushion, mouth guard and knee pads come to my mind and come to a near stop to make a sharp turn. Fast boats have Vee bottoms and stepped chines/lift strakes for the purpose of stability at speed. Gary
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> > > powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
> > >
> > > I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> > > too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would that be?
> > Let's see what I can remember.
> >
> > Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5 HP outboard.
> >
> > He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP engine
> > being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
> >
> > Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
> >
> > The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed - but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element of danger involved.
> >
> > There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
> >
> > -Derek
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@> wrote:
> >
> > Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> > powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
> >
> > I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> > too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
> >
> >
>
> Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would that be?
> Let's see what I can remember.
>
> Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5 HP outboard.
>
> He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP engine
> being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
>
> Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
>
> The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed - but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element of danger involved.
>
> There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
>
> -Derek
>

>
> Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
>
> I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
>
>

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:09 AM, slloyd<slloyd@...>wrote:

is Stitch & Glue construction the appropriate method to build a bolger sneakeasy?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dmlms" <dstutzma@...> wrote:
>
> I built a Sneakeasy which I finished in 2005. I use a 30hp Evinrude and find it works well. I did write to Mr bolger and get his approval before I purchased the motor. Top speed is 25 to 30 depending on prop and load. Dave
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dmlms" <dstutzma@...> wrote:
>
> I built a Sneakeasy which I finished in 2005. I use a 30hp Evinrude and find it works well. I did write to Mr bolger and get his approval before I purchased the motor. Top speed is 25 to 30 depending on prop and load. Dave
>