17ft vs 19ft boats?
Geoffrey Sherwood
or 195 I/Os. 2-4 weeks. So I get to sit tight and think about things for a
bit. While I'm sitting and thinking I thought I'd as a question of the net.
What kind of difference in handling should I expect between a 17' boat and
a 19' boat?
The reason for the question is that while I'm in California I will be boating
a lot more on lakes and up in the delta. When I go back to Florida I will
be occaisionally going into Tampa Bay and off into the Atlantic down around
the Florida Keys. In my old Seacraft 21' I've been out in 5-6' seas. Not
a lot of fun, but I never felt that the boat couldn't handle it. But up to
about 3-4 ft I had no difficulties at all.
I do want a smaller boat than that because I want to trailer it (and that
puppy was larger than I'd care to drag around behind me -- though I know
a lot of people do). So I'm looking at these two boats which list at
$10K and $14K (a netter said his dealer added $1K to the 10K for dealer prep/
destination charge; I'd guess a bit more for the 195, so ballpark it at
11K and $15.5K). Obviously for the extra $$ I'd be getting a bit more room
inside, a larger engine, and worse fuel economy. I would expect I would
also get a better ride as conditions deteriorate, but by how much? I
realize this is a difficult thing to quantify, but any help or guesstimates
would be welcome. Two feet makes a *lot* of difference to a canoe, but in
a powerboat??
many thanks,
geoff sherwood
kevin weber
Sherwood) wrote:
>
>
> The reason for the question is that while I'm in California I will be boating
> a lot more on lakes and up in the delta. When I go back to Florida I will
> be occaisionally going into Tampa Bay and off into the Atlantic down around
> the Florida Keys. In my old Seacraft 21' I've been out in 5-6' seas. Not
> a lot of fun, but I never felt that the boat couldn't handle it. But up to
> about 3-4 ft I had no difficulties at all.
Of course there is a LOT of difference between 3 to 4 foot wind seas and
long ocean swell. I've had my 16 footer out in 9 foot swells with no
problem. A good 20 second interval and the boat goes up and down nice and
slow. But a 4 foot wind sea makes for a very rough ride. 6 foot wind seas
I put into the small craft advisory range, because usually there's at least
a 2 foot swell with it, making for 8 foot combined seas.
>Two feet makes a *lot* of difference to a canoe, but in a powerboat??
I know this is very hard to quantify, but in my experience the biggest
factor in handling rough seas is the depth of the hull; how deep the V is.
For example, bass boats, even the bigger ones up to 21 feet, would do
extremely poor in rough seas, whereas a 16 foot deep V would do much
better. Since we're dealing with similar boats here, try to compare the
hull depth. Beam might be an indicator, but might not. If the hulls are
very comparable, I would not expect a great deal of difference, especially
if some of the extra length is cosmetic. Some people are swayed to a
bigger boat just cause they're told/are more impressed with a bigger boat.
Don't necessarily believe the model numbers as a true indicator of length.
I forgot what mfg it wass, but in Sportsfisherman (I think) magazine they
gave the specs on a bunch of boats. One mfg had a "23" footer that was
23'8" LOA and their "25" footter was 24'10". A whopping difference of 1
foot 2 inches. (Thinking about it, I believe it was Proline)
kevin
David Mosen
I would enjoy hearing from experienced trailer-boaters (power) on the
following point:
What is the biggest trailer-boat that can be easily launched by an adult
male of average size and strength, working alone.
I would like to cover the entire coast between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay
California, fishing on days when the swells are ranging up to seven feet.
So I don't necessarily mean the biggest boat, but rather one that can handle
these conditions comfortably enough so I can stay out for most of the day
and get home safely.
Here are some ideas:
19 ft Whaler Outrage
19 ft Arima Sea Ranger
(How hard does this one pound into the swells under way?)
21 foot SeaSwirl Striper
I am interested in anything built after 1980 or thereabouts.
I have owned a 14 foot Livingston twin hull for six years and have learned
a lot about fishing the area mentioned above. But the craft is too small
to venture more than four or five miles from the launch ramp on a typical
day. I am taking my twelve-year-old son with me more often these days, but
I would still like to have a boat I can launch single-handedly when he is
off doing something else.
Please email me your advice and opinions. This forum is a better way to
get the real low down than talking to a salesman or reading boat ads.
--
Dave Mosen (408) 379-7000 ext 1155 Pre-Release Group
HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue Campbell, CA 95008
Geoffrey Sherwood
: In article <1994Jul25.1...@adobe.com>, sher...@adobe.com (Geoffrey
: Sherwood) wrote:
: >
: >Two feet makes a *lot* of difference to a canoe, but in a powerboat??
: Since we're dealing with similar boats here, try to compare the
: hull depth. Beam might be an indicator, but might not. If the hulls are
: very comparable, I would not expect a great deal of difference, especially
: if some of the extra length is cosmetic.
Well, the difference between the 17 and 19' Sea Rays is all real boat (or at
least as far as the pictures go...). They look identical (except for the
added length) and since they are close siblings I'm sure the hull shape is
the same. Any cosmetic features that one has the other does, too, so those
shouldn't change the equation. If nothing else the 19' version will weigh
several hundred pounds more both from the larger hull and larger engine.
That alone should give a bit more stability. I think :-). Maybe not and
I can save the $4000 by getting the cheaper 17'.
Anyway, any thoughts would be most welcome.
geoff sherwood
Mark Roberts
>In article <1994Jul25.1...@adobe.com>, sher...@adobe.com (Geoffrey
>Sherwood) wrote:
>>
>
***** text deleted *****
>>
>
>I know this is very hard to quantify, but in my experience the biggest
>factor in handling rough seas is the depth of the hull; how deep the V is.
>For example, bass boats, even the bigger ones up to 21 feet, would do
>extremely poor in rough seas, whereas a 16 foot deep V would do much
>better.
The deeper the "V" the more the boat will roll side to side in heavy
seas at low speeds. A flat bottom boat hardly rolls at all in heavy seas,
but you tend to get pitched around a little more.
A deeper "V" is *much* better for running in heavy seas. A flat bottom
boat "pounds" really hard and makes for an uncomfortable ride. You will
need to go a lot slower in a flat bottom boat in big seas (3+ feet).
> Since we're dealing with similar boats here, try to compare the
>hull depth. Beam might be an indicator, but might not.
In flat bottom dories, a 22' boat with a 7.5 foot beam and a five foot
bottom will handle *much* heavier seas than a comperable boat with a
3.5' to 4' bottom. Dories used in Oregon usually have side that run
22"-38". Length varies from 18'-22', beam from 7'-8' and bottoms from
3 1/2' to 5'.
**** text deleted ******
>I forgot what mfg it wass, but in Sportsfisherman (I think) magazine they
>gave the specs on a bunch of boats. One mfg had a "23" footer that was
>23'8" LOA and their "25" footter was 24'10". A whopping difference of 1
>foot 2 inches. (Thinking about it, I believe it was Proline)
Most boat lengths are measured along the gunnell, not stem to stern. You
lose some of your length in the curviture of the boat. BTW, 25 feet minus
24 feet 10 inches is only 2 inches ... you either made a typo or a
subtraction error. ;)
Fish to Live, Live to Fish
'Fish Assassin' Mark
Pacific City, OR
******* Just an old tech. guy livin' in a High Tech world *******
Bill Walker
mrob...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts) wrote:
[...]
> Most boat lengths are measured along the gunnell, not stem to stern. You
> lose some of your length in the curviture of the boat.
[...]
Mark, you're demonstrated in the past that you're very knowledgable in
many areas regarding boats and boating, but I've never in my life heard of
a boat's length being measured along the gunwale, without it being
explicitly specified as such. I've seen LOA (length overall), LOD (length
on deck), LWL (length at water line), all of which (with the possible
exception of LWL) are measured in a straight line down the center of the
boat. Length along the gunwale is a pretty useless measurement, after
all. It doesn't tell you how long a space you need to park the boat in
(whether in a slip or on a trailer).
----------
Bill Walker - WWa...@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Greg Pavlov
>
> Don't necessarily believe the model numbers as a true indicator of length.
> I forgot what mfg it wass, but in Sportsfisherman (I think) magazine they
> gave the specs on a bunch of boats. One mfg had a "23" footer that was
> 23'8" LOA and their "25" footter was 24'10". A whopping difference of 1
> foot 2 inches. (Thinking about it, I believe it was Proline)
>
one 250-350 "fishing boats". I would take the numbers with a rain of salt.
In some cases there are simply mistakes that the editors don't catch. Also,
some manufacturers will include bow pulpits and ob brackets in the stated
lengths while others don't. This leads to apples-to-oranges comparisons.
In general, I would take a model number that implies a length and assume that
that is the longest possible hull-only length of the boat, IF the precise
length was important to me. I would also look closely at the maximum beam
since it is usually stated reasonably accurately and, from a performance/
functionality point of view, is often more important (in my estimation...).
BUT even then, be careful. For example, a 24' Rampage is listed as having
a 9' beam but its considerably less than that at the rear of the cockpit
where it tends to be quite important, in a fishing boat...
greg pavlov
pav...@fstrf.org
Peter W. Meek
: explicitly specified as such. I've seen LOA (length overall), LOD (length
: on deck), LWL (length at water line), all of which (with the possible
: exception of LWL) are measured in a straight line down the center of the
: boat.
This thread on boat length measurement reminds me of the Hi-Fi power
wars in the late 50'/early 60's. At one point, some manufacturers
were rating their amplifiers according to the maximum transient
voltage that the amplifier was capable of generating and calculating
the "instantaneous wattage" from that. No limits on distortion, so
that the output didn't even have to have *any* relationship to the
input during the measurement. Almost like saying that the stern of
the boat was in Miami on Jan 1, the bow was in NY on Jul 1, so the
boat is "rated' as 1000 Miles long over all (without reference to time.)
Finally (through some industry trade group, I think), they began to
rate amplifiers according to a more reasonable (but still puffed up,
IMHO) system.
It's time that the boating industry came up with something
similar. How about defining the bow as where the line of the stem
(extended if neccesary) intersects the seam between hull and deck
(if there is a deck, gunwale if not); and the stern as the aft-most
point at which the transom intersects the hull. The distance,
parallel to the water and parallel to the centerline of the boat
while the boat is at rest, from the defined bow to the defined
stern, shall be the "Defined Length" of the boat. Any overhang
at bow or stern shall be added to give LOA. I believe that some
sailboat rating systems use a similar method of defining exactly
where the bow is defined to be. Perhaps some of the language
could be derived from that.
I am in the market for a 25' boat, but it needs to register
as a 25' boat since there are fairly restrictive local laws
that apply to boats 26' and over. There is no point for me
to move up to a 23' or 24' boat with 3 or 4 feet of overhang.
The maker of my current boat is perfectly willing to make
me a custom 25' boat (from their standard mold, but without
the built in bow pulpit and swim platform) BUT IT WILL
STILL BE REGISTERED AS A 28 FOOT BOAT, even though there
is NO PART OF THE BOAT EXTENDING BEYOND 25 FEET! Figure
that, if you will. I am willing (eager) to spend $50k
or more and they don't want my money.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com>
Time flies like an arrow; time durations like a stopwatch.