Quote:
. . Would the 4" less offset be of more value being closer to the transom provided less of a throw to the COG, or do you guys think the 4" more inches of flotation space would be better because it offsets the weight of the engine more? I've read CaptLloyd's post on the modifications he made to his B-Bracket to get more lift and how in retrospect he would have gone with a bracket that provided more flotation to begin with, but I'm kinda locked in place with the 20" shaft.
What do you guys think is the better option? Cutting the transom back to the 20" notch and risk having the water dangerously close (if not up to) to the line of the splash well because of the extra weight (and like you guys said, possibly killing the resale value because noone wants a 20" transom anymore, although right now I dont ever see myself selling her I want to keep my options open), or keeping the transom full, installing a positive flotation bracket like from D&D (or from the other guy and having him fabricate one with a wider flotation chamber for more weight offset) and possibly have the boat ride a little off from being stern heavy. I have redone with transom with Coosa saving weight, moved the batteries to under the console, pushed the fuel tank all the way forward, and could put a couple gallons of freshwater in the anchor storage up front to help offset the weight if need be, later add trim tabs, etc). It all just seems like the wisest choice to me to go with the bracket and closed transom. I'm pretty sure thats how I'm going, and hopefully get some reassurance from you guys. I know I might run into COG problems from doing this, but which is worse, working out COG issues, or having my boat/engine dangerously close to the waterline with a 20" transom and still probably have COG issues to work out? Thanks for any input guys.
|
Closing in the transom is probably a good idea with that heavy motor. I suspect the cowls on most of the new motors are pretty watertight, at least enough to survive a quick dunking, so I think it's more important to keep water out of the boat in rough seas than to worry about motor being temporarily dunked by a big wave. Don't know about the Zuke, but one E-Tec demo of one of the smaller motors showed it continuing to run after they completely buried the cowl by backing down fast enough to put it under!
Don Herman might be able to modify one of his brackets for a 20" shaft, so I wouldn't rule that out without asking him. I wouldn't worry about the resale issue because it's probably easier to modify a 20" bracket for 25" shaft than vice versa. I'd go with the smallest setback you can get away with, because that aft weight shift is ALWAYS there, even when you're on plane, while the flotation tank only helps at rest! Should be able to figure out min setback from the installation drawings that should have come with the motor. If you go with a custom bracket, just make the flotation tank as wide and deep as possible, with the shortest possible setback. When I was looking at the Armstrong bracket, I considered going with the twin engine bracket to get biggest tank with a single engine. And if it's aluminum, powdercoat is probably the most durable finish unless you just leave it bare like they do on many workboats.
Adding ballast in the bow is a generally poor way to correct a CG balance problem because more weight always hurts performance. Carl Moesly did use ballast tanks in his race boats to adjust CG for running into head seas, but he had them rigged so he could dump the ballast whenever it wasn't needed. I'd move console & batteries forward as much as possible, and try a Doelfin, a stern lifting prop, and trim tabs, in approximately that order (of increasing cost!) before adding useless weight!