72 Seacraft Safari

[Bushwacker]

Originally Posted by Seacraft84

. . . Looking at making it a center console

It's spelled Seafari, and butchering one to turn it into a CC is a bad idea for any number of reasons, particularly from an engineering perspective, but that doesn't seem to stop amateur naval architects from proposing it about every 6 months! Not only is it MUCH cheaper and easier to just buy a center console model, of which THOUSANDS were made over about 25 years, by SeaCraft Industries and Tracker as well as Potter and Moesly. Only 741 Seafari’s were built for over 10 years, only by Moesly and Potter. As others have mentioned, it would be a shame to destroy a relatively rare and uniquely versatile model to turn it into something that’s so common.

As Gillie said, there are some differences between the Seafari and CC in the cap/inner liner, and those differences are there for some VERY significant structural reasons. I always wondered why the CC models didn’t have the under-gunnel rod holders and handy shelf in the back that runs the entire length of the cockpit in the Seafari, but I think I finally figured it out. The cabin top, bulkheads and raised 6.5’ cabin bunks in the Seafari add a LOT of torsional stiffness to the hull! Since the CC’s don’t have any of that structure, the only way they can attain some (but probably not all) of the Seafari’s stiffness is to create a box section in the back of the hull by closing in the inner liner! (Some CC owners that have ridden in my boat in rough seas have said it feels a lot more solid than their CC’s when punching into big waves, and now I think I know why!) The CC’s do have the raised casting platform up front that compensates for some of stiffness lost by opening the sides of the inner liner up forward for rod holders. However I don't think that configuration has nearly the torsional stiffness that you get with a full width cabin top supported by a couple of ¾” plywood bulkheads!

So you’re proposing to eliminate all that rigid structure in a hull that DOESN’T have the box section in the back of the inner liner? I think the result will be a “wobbly noodle” in terms of it’s torsional stiffness! Take a shoe box with the top taped on it and try to twist it. Then remove the top and cut out one end, and twist it again, and I think you’ll get the idea.

I suppose you could try to stiffen the hull by increasing it’s thickness by adding some balsa core and extra glass above the water line, or even foam core if you use epoxy resin and vacuum bag it to insure the foam bonds to the hull. This will significantly increase the bending strength of the hull, but it won’t do a lot to increase it’s torsional stiffness. That full inner liner in the back of a CC essentially creates a hull with 6” thick sides, and coring the hull to make it 1” thick obviously won’t be nearly as stiff as one that’s 6” thick! Sort of like adding some corrugated cardboard to the sides of the cut up shoebox.

Now I know that SeaCrafts are seriously overbuilt compared to most of the competition, and I suppose that even one that’s been badly butchered is still probably more robust than the average Bayliner, but why start with a superior design and turn it into something that’s just ordinary?! To this old engineer, that just seems wrong on so many levels!