Thread: Topaz 24'
View Single Post
  #1  
Old 01-20-2005, 01:05 AM
mpwitte mpwitte is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Shamong, NJ
Posts: 13
Default Re: Topaz 24'

Scott,

I guess you could call them prototypes. They were finished and rigged to the same standards as any others I built. The first one (light green) was a little heavier than normal because the stringers were reworked from standard I/O layout, but thats why the larger motor.

You need to understand we were a tiny semi-custom opperation. I had a total of five guys building these boats start to finish. The boats were all built to order, either to a specific dealers specs or to customer wants/needs. We had two dealers interested in trying a jackshaft or inboard configuration. The re-engineering is nearly the same for both. I started with the idea of a jackshaft first. the problem was the shaft. I wanted to keep the motor under the console, not under the seat area. No one (merc, volvo, etc) could supply us with a long enough shaft so we would have had to have it custom built. We decided to do the inboard. I built an insert for the tunnel in the hull. It was almost two inches deeper than Seacraft I had for a guide and about 10 inches longer total. I moved the console on the Silverhawk back about 7" and reworked the console door and deck area. The motor sits 12"-16" further forward from the transom than in a Seacraft because I wanted a larger cockpit. The shaft angle was figured at 8* and actually worked out to around 7*-7.5*. The boats ran great. The Silverhawks were considerably heavier than the Seacraft but obviously a little longer too. The average deadrise at the stern is slightly less as a result of lengthening the hull and the Silverhawk has more flat at the outer chine. I never spent enough time on both boats on the same day to say if one was better/faster but if I had to guess I would imagine a Seacraft inboard with identical power to be slightly faster and the Silverhawk to ride slightly better. They had some tunnel rumble that could have beeen helped with a 4 blade prop instead of the three. If I had built more, I would have changed the tunnel shape slightly to improve water flow but nothing major. I understand the beef some people have with the motor box, but believe me, the gas I/O model was the best combo for all around speed, ride, handeling, and fuel economy. Yes, the outboarads are faster and the diesels got fantastic fuel economy but the gas I/O was a sweet running package. Thats why we built what ever someone asked for. (Did you ever see the pod drive?!)

You are right about it being a huge investment of time and effort for two boats. It was still easier than building an entire new deck and interior liner mold for the cuddy/express model of which I only ever built one. The problems revolved around being under funded and not having the resorces for proper advertising, boat shows, etc. The owners I worked for (and the dealers I worked with) were great people but in the end I guess they got an offer they couldn't refuse.

Mike.
Reply With Quote