Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Why the Wall-to-Wall Gunwales?

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Why the Wall-to-Wall Gunwales?
hooter posted 06-09-2003 12:20 PM ET (US)   Profile for hooter  
Mebbe one of the Brunswick/Whaler staff that participates here could address this question. A recent post included this photo of a vintage Montauk aside a big new 27 Outrage.

http://users.erols.com/chesbay/bignlittle.jpg

The contrast is stikin’ in that the li’l old Montauk actually appears to have as much square footage of deck space, or at least space between the gunwales, as the 10’ “bigger” boat. This conforms t’mah observation of a bunch o’new Whalers, gen’rally. What gives? Even if this perception is partially a optical illusion, can somebody explain the point of those fat gunwales on all the new Whalers? Folks with experience as owners of hulls on both sides o’the gen’ration gap prob’ly have a woithwhile opinion, too.

prm1177 posted 06-09-2003 12:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
I agree (see my post on the Nantucket). The new Nantucket 19 seems to have less interior space than my 97 Outrage II 17. If this keeps up the Whalers of 2010 will be single cockpit hulls :)

No wonder owners of the Classics gaze fondly at the old days. Maybe it's the movement towards ever deeper V hulls.

Hugh Williams posted 06-09-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hugh Williams  Send Email to Hugh Williams     
If the 27 outrage had the same proportions as lets same my boat the 16 dauntless beam=7ft. , the 27 outrage would be almost 12 feet wide instead of 8'6". And for the classics, it is a rectangle vs. triangle. Rectangle has a larger area, but the triangle rides nicer.
hooter posted 06-10-2003 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Your comments relative t' deeper "v" entry explain some of the lost space up front, where the new hulls have forsaken the wide "flat-top" aircraft carrier style of the older hulls. That deeper V, however, still doesn't explain the purpose o'those wide gunwales in the back 60% of the hull. Seems a steeper V entry that extends farther back from the bow would explain the opposite, a need for less, not more, gunwale width, 'cause the sides comin' up off that entry should be steeper, right? Sure wish an expert would chime in here. What is the pernt o'those fat gunwales and lots o'space between inner and outter hull sections gobblin' up precious deck space? Could it be the new things is so heavy they need the added floatation t'gain the same Pow'r-Head-Above-Water-When-Swamped effect the legend was built on?
Lagged posted 06-10-2003 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Lagged  Send Email to Lagged     
Remember that that Outrage has rod holders in the gunwales, comming pads, and rod and gaff storage underneath. This adds to the width of the gunwales. Also the angle of the photograph could be making the outrage's gunwales seem to be wider than they are. There is a lot more storage in the Outrage so all your coolers, tackle, PFDs and things can store neatly out of the way and not just laying around the cockpit like on the Classic hulls. It is a shame they did away with the older Outrage hulls. They are works of art.
Chap posted 06-10-2003 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
That must be some toe cove.
Some of the newer hulls inspire me to put on some Jazz:

www.jazzvisionsphotos.com/contact/diz-blowing.htm

bsmotril posted 06-10-2003 11:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
I would think the wide gunnel acts like the web of an I'Beam (or C Beam in this case) to stiffen the hull form. With a longer hull, there is a tendency for it bend fore and aft causing the sides to bow out in the process. The wide gunnels act like stiffening beams to prevent this from happening. I also think that the coaming bolsters in the photo create the illusion that the gunnels are wider than they actually are in real life.
BillS
Hugh Williams posted 06-10-2003 11:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Hugh Williams  Send Email to Hugh Williams     
True, the picture is not taken over head. If you have ever riden in a large Carolina Skiff, you know that when you are running, the side are floppy. They jiggle! They do not on the Whaler, But you are right they do have thick sides. I know what you mean hooter!
Jerry Townsend posted 06-10-2003 01:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
One should have measurements and objective information rather than subjective observations when making a point. As Lagged points out, there are rod holders designed into the gunwale width and rod, boat hook et.el. holders under the gunwale. The width of the gunwale does not decrease the deck space - as the gunwale width does not extend to the floor/deck. And as Lagged points out, the organized "storage" is preferred to having these things just scattered on the floor/deck.

And as bsmotril points out, the gunwale width adds strength and stiffness which is of benefit to withstand lateral loads and deflections.

Therefore, there is ample rationale for the wider gunwale design.

Attempts to compare the "V" of a whaler to an aircraft carrier is futile - take a look at a carrier sitting in a dry-dock and you will see a DEEP V. ---- Jerry/Idaho

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.