Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [bolger] Re: Bolger Speakeasy

Expand Messages
  • Adirondack Goodboat
    I wonder whether an overpowered speakeasy would produce a wave or trough at a certain displacement speed that left the hull poorly supported amidships, such
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      I wonder whether an overpowered speakeasy would produce a wave or trough at a certain displacement speed that left the hull poorly supported amidships, such that she could, with little inducement, fall over into the hole. This was a discovery of Clinton Crane as he attempted to make faster and faster displacement race-boats in, what, the 19-teens?

       

      From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djdecker2002
      Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 1:31 PM
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bolger] Re: Bolger Sneakeasy

       

       



      --- In bolger@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

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.