Weighed My Outrage - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Weighed My Outrage

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Weighed My Outrage

tomol posted 09-14-2006 03:39 PM ET (US)
On a certified scale (20 pound margin for error) my 18 weighed 3,360 pounds. Subtract the trailer (565 lbs.), full tank (395 lbs.), 150 Yamaha 2-stroke (400 lbs.), leaning post, anchor and two batteries (combined 200 lbs.), and I've got 1,800 pounds of boat.
The published 1,250 lb. weight has been consistently reported here to be light. Does the published weight include the console? I've resigned myself to the fact that I have some water in the hull, but I'm trying to get a feel for how much? Am I really 550 lbs. overweight?
tomol posted 09-14-2006 03:40 PM ET (US)
I should add that this came about as I search for the right prop. If I am that heavy, perhaps this thread would more suitable in the Repair/Mods section :-(.
Buckda posted 09-14-2006 04:27 PM ET (US)
That weight does not include console or railings. It is a bare hull weight, so consider that you have about 150 lbs in the console and another 30 lbs or so of railing, we're getting closer. Do you have bottom paint? That stuff is heavy too.
I think that 1,500-1,700 is just about right for the actual weight of these hulls, without water intrusion.
I would not worry about that.
Dave
kamie posted 09-14-2006 06:11 PM ET (US)
Does the boat plane with the 150HP? You should be fine. Dirk's boat weights in a 1540 pounds and has since he bought it. That is probably a better weight to compare against. Also what kind of trailer, mine comes in at 600 pounds. How about the outboard, 2 stroke is going to come in at 427, those 20 pounds here, 20 pounds there starts to add up.
continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001322.html
honestly, I think your fine.

tomol posted 09-14-2006 09:57 PM ET (US)
Great news! Thanks for the help. Now if I can just figure out my prop situation.
I went from a 19=M SS to a Vortex 15 x 17 aluminum. WOT went from 4500 rpms/40 mph to 5000 rpms/37 mph. Cruise went from 3200 rpms/26.5 mph to 3500 rpms/24 mph. In looking through the archives, it looks like a 14.25 x 17 is the most common choice. I'm thinking of trying that in stainless. Seem reasonable?
tomol posted 09-14-2006 10:07 PM ET (US)
Got ahead of myself again. Kamie, yes the boat planes easily, but it hadn't been getting the mileage or top end I expected. The trailer is a Karavan and weighs 565 lbs. per Karavan. The outboard is an old Yamaha.
Boy does that boat have bottom paint. I was just under the bow this evening replacing the front wheel assembly on the trailer, and I noticed a spot that had chipped off and showed a different color paint underneath. Closer inspection showed yet a third color under the second color.
Tom W Clark posted 09-15-2006 09:45 AM ET (US)
The specified weight of a given model of Boston Whaler generally is NOT just the weight of the bare hull but the weight of the boat equipped with standard equipment.
Thus the 1250 pound specified weight of a classic Outrage 18 would include the weight f the console, helm seats and bow rail. NOT included in the weight would be any fuel, outboard motor, rigging, battery(s) optional equipment.
tomol,
I see of some mention of equipment on board, like the batteries, anchor and rode but no mention of things like propeller, motor rigging, electronics, compass, canvas system, etc.
If you think the stuff we all carry on our boats doesn't add up to much, think again. When I bought my Revenge I removed items one at a time and weighed them. There were hundreds of pounds of gear onboard.
Your estimate f the trailer weight is probably low. do you have a tongue jack? Ties down straps? Optional brakes? Return to the scale with juts the tailer for a fair measurement of its weight.
Yes, bottom paint is very heavy. It is easy to forget it adds weight but pick u five gallons at the chandlery and you'll see how heavy it is.
I doubt very much that your boat is really 550 pounds overweight. The case of the heavy Outrage 18 continues...
Outrage2795 posted 09-15-2006 09:48 AM ET (US)
I weighed my 1985 18 Outrage with a typical steel C-shaped section trailer, 150 hp Evinrude two stroke (400 lbs), 9.9 Honda Four stroke (120 lbs), 20 gallons fuel (130 lbs), safety gear, console, cooler, RPS, steering and control cables, and a little clutter. It came out to 3380 lbs. I know the hull is dry, so it sounds like you're OK.
The Judge posted 09-15-2006 12:04 PM ET (US)
Ditto with Tom. I think they quoted you a low weight on that trailer. My 17' Trailer made out of aluminum was almost 500lbs, can't see steel only being 65lbs heavier. Weigh the trailer.
erik selis posted 09-15-2006 12:33 PM ET (US)
A while ago I made (and posted here on the forum) some graphs comparing published data from the classic Whaler models to the newer Whaler models. The weight of the 18-ft Outrage (and most likely the 20-ft Outrage) seem to be way low. If you scroll through the graphs you will see more questionable data IMO. It seems that at a certain point in time, Whaler became more accurate in their published data.
http://users.skynet.be/extreme-vissers/ BW%20comparison%201986-2004%20Models.pdf
Erik
highanddry posted 09-15-2006 12:57 PM ET (US)
One of the things used to bash new Whalers is their weight. The simple fact and it is a Fact is that the older Whalers are just as heavy for any given size. Gravity and foam weigh the same now as they did 30 years ago and any water in them from having been moored or abused is on top of that plus all the repairs. They are heavy boats, yesterday and today.
The Judge posted 09-15-2006 01:06 PM ET (US)
Not really...a new 130 is over 300lbs heavier than an old blue hulled 13. The 2002 170 is 400lbs heavier than the 2002 Classic 17'. The 170 is a bigger boat than the classic(length, height, & width) but the 130 is still 13'.
highanddry posted 09-15-2006 06:59 PM ET (US)
Sorry, nope, your not comparing oranges to oranges and nope, if they are the same size and as you guys claim the foam is the same mixture and if you claim the two 13s are exactly the same shape, size, fittment (which they are not) then your scales are wrong or you should report an odd gravitational disturbance in your area.
The Montauk 170 is a substantially larger boat than the older hulls and therefore it weighs more, no mystery there.
ConB posted 09-15-2006 07:01 PM ET (US)
My Outrage 18 has a Johnson 150 with rebuilt power head.
Propeller is a Michigan Wheel Vortex 14 3/4 x 19.
Cruise is about 24mph @ 3100 rpm.
Top end about 44mph @ 5200rpm.
Con
Tom W Clark posted 09-15-2006 10:00 PM ET (US)
It is NOT true that the foam today is the same as the foam thirty years ago. The fact is that Whaler's Unibond construction process has yielded hulls of steadily increasing weight in part because of stronger, denser foam and thicker 'glass. This is why a 13 footer from the 1960s weighed 250 pounds yet the same hull in the late 1980s weighed well over 300 pounds.
Erik is the only source I know of that has provided what I consider good data on the weight of a classic Outrage 18. In that particular case the perceived difference in hull weight was 300 pounds, if I remember correctly. I simply do not believe that an Outrage 18 which is spec'd at 1250 pounds really weighs 1800 pounds.
cwolf posted 09-16-2006 12:20 PM ET (US)
Not to muddy the waters any more but the way it's been explained to me by boat designers / builders is that weight plays a significant role in their designs. The more expensive resins and cloth yield lighter weight boats. When a company wants to cut costs (ex. a corp. buyout) the bean-counters force a switch to less expensive resin and cloths which can significantly increase the weight and throw their original designs out of whack.
The Judge posted 09-16-2006 12:32 PM ET (US)
Weight also makes boats ride better but slower. Ever been in a 21 Regulator, slap the knees off a junebug.
As far as Whalers being heavy...nope. Look at most 18' boats and tell me if they are as light as a 18 classic and still handle 150hp. The 18 Hydra-sports is over 2k and she is Kevlar weave.
kamie posted 09-16-2006 02:55 PM ET (US)
Erik,
the person capacity of the classic 18 Outrage is 7, not 8. The Nantucket is 8.
RAY50LB posted 09-16-2006 03:57 PM ET (US)
I have a 1990 22 outrage and I too feel it is time for me to address the possible danger of water in the hull. It seems from the post here there are so many variable by using the weight method.
So is there another way to tell if there is hidden water any where in the hull?

Also are there any other preventive test or measurements I should be making on my hull at this point of its life?
RB
jimh posted 09-16-2006 06:17 PM ET (US)
See the FAQ:
Is there water in my hull?
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/FAQ/#Q3
erik selis posted 09-17-2006 03:55 AM ET (US)
Kamie, you're right. Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction.
Erik
dfmcintyre posted 09-17-2006 01:35 PM ET (US)
And to further add to the "apples and oranges" point. The early blue interior 13's are a different hull than the later 13's.
Regards - Don
kamie posted 09-17-2006 03:42 PM ET (US)
Erik,
The catalogs are plain wrong in some places. The 1986 catalog does list max capacity as 8 people, but the 1985 and 1987 catalog along with the capacity plate on my 87 list 7. Try reading the hull weights on the 230 Outrage. One year the weight jumped 400 pounds, and the boat didn't change at all.
tomol posted 09-18-2006 11:55 AM ET (US)
Wow, Continuouswave comes through again!
I've been back in touch with Karavan, and with more specific questioning, it turns out the trailer weighs 655 lbs., not 565. No word on whether that includes the front wheel.
If I include 50 lbs. for rigging (the prop was aluminum and very light), I now come in at 1,660 lbs. With unknowns like bottom paint, the trailer front wheel assembly and the "20 pounds here and there", I'm guessing 1,660 is on the high side, which, based on some of your responses, appears to be in the ball park. Now I have to get that prop.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Weighed My Outrage
tomol	posted 09-14-2006 03:39 PM ET (US) On a certified scale (20 pound margin for error) my 18 weighed 3,360 pounds. Subtract the trailer (565 lbs.), full tank (395 lbs.), 150 Yamaha 2-stroke (400 lbs.), leaning post, anchor and two batteries (combined 200 lbs.), and I've got 1,800 pounds of boat. The published 1,250 lb. weight has been consistently reported here to be light. Does the published weight include the console? I've resigned myself to the fact that I have some water in the hull, but I'm trying to get a feel for how much? Am I really 550 lbs. overweight?
tomol	posted 09-14-2006 03:40 PM ET (US) I should add that this came about as I search for the right prop. If I am that heavy, perhaps this thread would more suitable in the Repair/Mods section :-(.
Buckda	posted 09-14-2006 04:27 PM ET (US) That weight does not include console or railings. It is a bare hull weight, so consider that you have about 150 lbs in the console and another 30 lbs or so of railing, we're getting closer. Do you have bottom paint? That stuff is heavy too. I think that 1,500-1,700 is just about right for the actual weight of these hulls, without water intrusion. I would not worry about that. Dave
kamie	posted 09-14-2006 06:11 PM ET (US) Does the boat plane with the 150HP? You should be fine. Dirk's boat weights in a 1540 pounds and has since he bought it. That is probably a better weight to compare against. Also what kind of trailer, mine comes in at 600 pounds. How about the outboard, 2 stroke is going to come in at 427, those 20 pounds here, 20 pounds there starts to add up. continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001322.html honestly, I think your fine.
tomol	posted 09-14-2006 09:57 PM ET (US) Great news! Thanks for the help. Now if I can just figure out my prop situation. I went from a 19=M SS to a Vortex 15 x 17 aluminum. WOT went from 4500 rpms/40 mph to 5000 rpms/37 mph. Cruise went from 3200 rpms/26.5 mph to 3500 rpms/24 mph. In looking through the archives, it looks like a 14.25 x 17 is the most common choice. I'm thinking of trying that in stainless. Seem reasonable?
tomol	posted 09-14-2006 10:07 PM ET (US) Got ahead of myself again. Kamie, yes the boat planes easily, but it hadn't been getting the mileage or top end I expected. The trailer is a Karavan and weighs 565 lbs. per Karavan. The outboard is an old Yamaha. Boy does that boat have bottom paint. I was just under the bow this evening replacing the front wheel assembly on the trailer, and I noticed a spot that had chipped off and showed a different color paint underneath. Closer inspection showed yet a third color under the second color.
Tom W Clark	posted 09-15-2006 09:45 AM ET (US) The specified weight of a given model of Boston Whaler generally is NOT just the weight of the bare hull but the weight of the boat equipped with standard equipment. Thus the 1250 pound specified weight of a classic Outrage 18 would include the weight f the console, helm seats and bow rail. NOT included in the weight would be any fuel, outboard motor, rigging, battery(s) optional equipment. tomol, I see of some mention of equipment on board, like the batteries, anchor and rode but no mention of things like propeller, motor rigging, electronics, compass, canvas system, etc. If you think the stuff we all carry on our boats doesn't add up to much, think again. When I bought my Revenge I removed items one at a time and weighed them. There were hundreds of pounds of gear onboard. Your estimate f the trailer weight is probably low. do you have a tongue jack? Ties down straps? Optional brakes? Return to the scale with juts the tailer for a fair measurement of its weight. Yes, bottom paint is very heavy. It is easy to forget it adds weight but pick u five gallons at the chandlery and you'll see how heavy it is. I doubt very much that your boat is really 550 pounds overweight. The case of the heavy Outrage 18 continues...
Outrage2795	posted 09-15-2006 09:48 AM ET (US) I weighed my 1985 18 Outrage with a typical steel C-shaped section trailer, 150 hp Evinrude two stroke (400 lbs), 9.9 Honda Four stroke (120 lbs), 20 gallons fuel (130 lbs), safety gear, console, cooler, RPS, steering and control cables, and a little clutter. It came out to 3380 lbs. I know the hull is dry, so it sounds like you're OK.
The Judge	posted 09-15-2006 12:04 PM ET (US) Ditto with Tom. I think they quoted you a low weight on that trailer. My 17' Trailer made out of aluminum was almost 500lbs, can't see steel only being 65lbs heavier. Weigh the trailer.
erik selis	posted 09-15-2006 12:33 PM ET (US) A while ago I made (and posted here on the forum) some graphs comparing published data from the classic Whaler models to the newer Whaler models. The weight of the 18-ft Outrage (and most likely the 20-ft Outrage) seem to be way low. If you scroll through the graphs you will see more questionable data IMO. It seems that at a certain point in time, Whaler became more accurate in their published data. http://users.skynet.be/extreme-vissers/ BW%20comparison%201986-2004%20Models.pdf Erik
highanddry	posted 09-15-2006 12:57 PM ET (US) One of the things used to bash new Whalers is their weight. The simple fact and it is a Fact is that the older Whalers are just as heavy for any given size. Gravity and foam weigh the same now as they did 30 years ago and any water in them from having been moored or abused is on top of that plus all the repairs. They are heavy boats, yesterday and today.
The Judge	posted 09-15-2006 01:06 PM ET (US) Not really...a new 130 is over 300lbs heavier than an old blue hulled 13. The 2002 170 is 400lbs heavier than the 2002 Classic 17'. The 170 is a bigger boat than the classic(length, height, & width) but the 130 is still 13'.
highanddry	posted 09-15-2006 06:59 PM ET (US) Sorry, nope, your not comparing oranges to oranges and nope, if they are the same size and as you guys claim the foam is the same mixture and if you claim the two 13s are exactly the same shape, size, fittment (which they are not) then your scales are wrong or you should report an odd gravitational disturbance in your area. The Montauk 170 is a substantially larger boat than the older hulls and therefore it weighs more, no mystery there.
ConB	posted 09-15-2006 07:01 PM ET (US) My Outrage 18 has a Johnson 150 with rebuilt power head. Propeller is a Michigan Wheel Vortex 14 3/4 x 19. Cruise is about 24mph @ 3100 rpm. Top end about 44mph @ 5200rpm. Con
Tom W Clark	posted 09-15-2006 10:00 PM ET (US) It is NOT true that the foam today is the same as the foam thirty years ago. The fact is that Whaler's Unibond construction process has yielded hulls of steadily increasing weight in part because of stronger, denser foam and thicker 'glass. This is why a 13 footer from the 1960s weighed 250 pounds yet the same hull in the late 1980s weighed well over 300 pounds. Erik is the only source I know of that has provided what I consider good data on the weight of a classic Outrage 18. In that particular case the perceived difference in hull weight was 300 pounds, if I remember correctly. I simply do not believe that an Outrage 18 which is spec'd at 1250 pounds really weighs 1800 pounds.
cwolf	posted 09-16-2006 12:20 PM ET (US) Not to muddy the waters any more but the way it's been explained to me by boat designers / builders is that weight plays a significant role in their designs. The more expensive resins and cloth yield lighter weight boats. When a company wants to cut costs (ex. a corp. buyout) the bean-counters force a switch to less expensive resin and cloths which can significantly increase the weight and throw their original designs out of whack.
The Judge	posted 09-16-2006 12:32 PM ET (US) Weight also makes boats ride better but slower. Ever been in a 21 Regulator, slap the knees off a junebug. As far as Whalers being heavy...nope. Look at most 18' boats and tell me if they are as light as a 18 classic and still handle 150hp. The 18 Hydra-sports is over 2k and she is Kevlar weave.
kamie	posted 09-16-2006 02:55 PM ET (US) Erik, the person capacity of the classic 18 Outrage is 7, not 8. The Nantucket is 8.
RAY50LB	posted 09-16-2006 03:57 PM ET (US) I have a 1990 22 outrage and I too feel it is time for me to address the possible danger of water in the hull. It seems from the post here there are so many variable by using the weight method. So is there another way to tell if there is hidden water any where in the hull? Also are there any other preventive test or measurements I should be making on my hull at this point of its life? RB
jimh	posted 09-16-2006 06:17 PM ET (US) See the FAQ: Is there water in my hull? http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/FAQ/#Q3
erik selis	posted 09-17-2006 03:55 AM ET (US) Kamie, you're right. Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. Erik
dfmcintyre	posted 09-17-2006 01:35 PM ET (US) And to further add to the "apples and oranges" point. The early blue interior 13's are a different hull than the later 13's. Regards - Don
kamie	posted 09-17-2006 03:42 PM ET (US) Erik, The catalogs are plain wrong in some places. The 1986 catalog does list max capacity as 8 people, but the 1985 and 1987 catalog along with the capacity plate on my 87 list 7. Try reading the hull weights on the 230 Outrage. One year the weight jumped 400 pounds, and the boat didn't change at all.
tomol	posted 09-18-2006 11:55 AM ET (US) Wow, Continuouswave comes through again! I've been back in touch with Karavan, and with more specific questioning, it turns out the trailer weighs 655 lbs., not 565. No word on whether that includes the front wheel. If I include 50 lbs. for rigging (the prop was aluminum and very light), I now come in at 1,660 lbs. With unknowns like bottom paint, the trailer front wheel assembly and the "20 pounds here and there", I'm guessing 1,660 is on the high side, which, based on some of your responses, appears to be in the ball park. Now I have to get that prop.