Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
190 Montauk Self Bailing; Installation of T-Top, Fishing Arch
|Author||Topic: 190 Montauk Self Bailing; Installation of T-Top, Fishing Arch|
posted 12-02-2007 10:55 AM ET (US)
I was just visiting the Boston Whaler web site again. I thought [the Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK] was self bailing? Is it? I was only in [the Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK] once on a show room floor.
Next fast quesiton. What are rules for drilling through the deck and gunwales for mounting a T-top or a fishing arch? In a previous discussion I thought I was told that Boston Whaler put blocks around the center console for mounting things like a T-top.
Thanks - Jack
posted 12-02-2007 11:00 AM ET (US)
[The Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK] is self bailing and there was a drawing some where showing where all the blocks and plates were in the hull. I printed it but forgot where it was, sorry.
posted 12-02-2007 12:51 PM ET (US)
In the owners package of materials thee is a diagram showing the location of "wood" in a Whaler for attaching accessories. The Montauck 190 is self bailing.
posted 12-02-2007 01:29 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the really fast feedback.. If anyone has first hand knowledge - how does the ride between a 19 Outrage and [the Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK] compare, or a 21 Outrage, the point being real boat time. Bottom line for me is that I like really simple boats, the [the Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK] fits that bill. Outrage has in deck fish boxes, etc. Which in reality really don't work well (a cooler on the deck is better for so many reasons). Thanks- Jack
posted 12-02-2007 02:09 PM ET (US)
Is the 190 Montauk really self bailing? It does show cockpit drains but I don't know if they are big enough in diameter to drain anything but rainwater during storage.
In the brochures for the Dauntless and Outrage, self draining cockpits are one of the first features mentioned and I don't see any mention of that on the 190 Montauk brochure material.
I guess we need a 190 Montauk owner to clarify some of this.
posted 12-02-2007 02:53 PM ET (US)
I own a 2008 190 Montauk. It is self- bailing. Regarding the t-top, I spoke with BW and they confirmed that the supports/reinforcements are in place to intall one. They claim they built in the supports in anticipation of 190 owners that would want a t-top.
posted 12-02-2007 08:11 PM ET (US)
The Nantucket/Outrage 190 does not have in deck fish boxes, it does have built in rod holders and a few other nice things. As to ride difference, I doubt there is much difference, the Outrage is a bit heavier and a bit deeper it seems in the foreward vee and has higher freeboard so I imagine when push comes to shove it would be marginally better.
posted 12-07-2007 10:22 AM ET (US)
It is self bailing until any candy wrappers or lures you left on the floor get stuck in the pipes!
posted 12-07-2007 10:47 AM ET (US)
Candy wrappers /lures in the drainage pipes - I understand what your saying but how hard was the problem to fix? (seems easy) Thanks - Jack
posted 12-08-2007 12:37 PM ET (US)
I was joking about the level of minutia we sometimes put these boats through in our zeal for perfection. It was no problem at all. Just pushed a tube through. The boat is what my fishing and frolicing dreams are made of.
posted 12-08-2007 02:30 PM ET (US)
Neither the Montauk 190 or the Outrage 190 can hold enough water to capsize them because the deep notch in the transom will not allow the water to stay onboard. It will drain over the transom even if the scuppers are pluuged. Filled to the transom notch my Outrage or Nantucket 190 still has a good six inches or more of gunwale.
posted 12-08-2007 02:57 PM ET (US)
H and D, was that a test you did or did you fill up your boat with water while boating?
posted 12-08-2007 03:20 PM ET (US)
boatdyvver, I am not going to argue with you, you go do your own test if you like and I will stay with what I said.
posted 12-08-2007 03:25 PM ET (US)
BTW, I any boat can and will capsize but the Nantucket/Outrage and I imagine Montauk 190 will not capsize just because it has water in it up to the transom notch. You guys just love to argue to try and prove the old water logged Whalers are better than the high and dry Brunswick Whalers--it is getting old. Maybe just go get yourself an old Mako or a PortaBoat. Go put a water hose in a Nantucket and fill it up and then put six people in it, mine floats high and dry. Plugthe scupper though or you will not get any water in it. Pull the plug--go ahead.
posted 12-08-2007 05:16 PM ET (US)
Whoa, whoa, whoa H and D. You completely misunderstood me here. Sorry if I hit a tender spot there.
I was just thinking there might be an exciting boating story behind that statement. Someone else on the site told of taking a big wave over the bow and nearly filling his whaler and then surviving without capsizing by powering ahead. Lots of the water exited via the notched transom with the bow high.
Actually, I'm working on getting a Brunswick Whaler now, and I have been thinking it would be an interesting experiment to put 50 gallons of water in one of these self bailing boats and see how long it takes to drain via the scuppers. When I get one maybe I'll do that.
posted 12-08-2007 05:38 PM ET (US)
Just how big are the scuppers on the 190 Outrage? I guarantee that taking a full wave over the bow will FILL the boat faster than the scuppers can evacuate the water. Heck, pull the boat COMPLETELY out of the water on a CRANE and it will take longer to drain than it took to fill.
Once filled, it WILL BE less stable than when empty of water. This is true for all boats, no matter what the transom design.
The point that classic fans have is that there is a much larger "HOLE" for water to EXIT the boat via with a NOTCHED transom than with scuppers. This is a simple truth.
That is not saying that one design is better than others.
Regarding mounting an ARCH, you will need backing plates under the gunwale caps for a secure installation. I recommend aluminum, however, KING STARBOARD or similar material, or even teak blocked wood is suitable, provided you also use fender washers to spread the load.
Unless Whaler installed aluminum in the deck to re-inforce the deck for a T-TOP, I'd be interested in removing the deck and installing a backing plate. No matter the thickness, a solid installation requires a backing plate. Though you never plan to go out on days that you get pounded, you will eventually find yourself in that situation.
The last thing you want in that situation is for your T-Top to be flopping around - that puppy is going to be grabbed by your 200 lb passenger who is going to "load" it when the boat hits a wave, and "reverse load" it when you come down off the wave. Additionally, the weight of your RADAR or antennas or whatever else you mount to it will be acting on those base mounts as well. The most secure mount you can arrange is called for on something like this. In effect, it becomes "structural" instead of "bolt on".
You'd be suprised at the forces acting on these tops and arches. I CRACKED my Schedule 40 aluminum tubing on my RADAR ARCH in two places on one outing a few years ago, facing opposing current and wind conditions and solid 6 footers. That day also cracked my teak gunwale cap.
Bottom line, when it hits the fan, and something on your boat is going to break (and it will), you want less important things to give first.
Just my $.02
And Highanddry, give it a rest man. No one is attacking the new boats here. Repeatedly saying it is so doesn't make it true...but it sure helps your case if you can cite examples.
posted 12-08-2007 07:46 PM ET (US)
Again Buduka, it is not entirely dependent upon the scuppers because most of the water will be shed over the low freeboard and out the notched transom leaving only the water below the transom notch needing to exit via the scuppers. I was thinking you guys knew how a BW worked and why they were built the way they are. All that foam below the deck and up to the gunwale in the sides and the sealed (small) bilge make it virtually impossible to sink. Since the bouyancy reserve of a Nantucket (and I use it because I own it) EXCEEDS the water that is retained below the transom notch therefore the boat will empty via the scuppers.
Sorry fella for jumping on you but even if I did have pics showing what I am talking about this site does not support modern internet information exchange.
posted 12-08-2007 07:48 PM ET (US)
Buckda, you will just have to forgive me if I think I am as much an expert as you, me I know, you I don't.
posted 12-09-2007 05:31 PM ET (US)
I never, ever, said that a BW would sink. My post is in response to yours:
Let's look at these statements more closely. For the sake of this discussion, let's say that you take a breaking wave over your bow, by which approximately 200 gallons of water enters the boat in an estimated 3 seconds. Assume the wave is a "Square" 9 footer, meaning the next 9 foot wave is coming at you in 9 seconds.
Now, freeze frame, put a barge next to your boat, and put it "high and dry" on the deck of the barge. Start motion again. How many seconds does it take for those 200 gallons to exit via the transom notch, scuppers and bilge pump? My money is on "more than 3 seconds".
My point is that sinking has nothing at all to do with capsizing. Capsizing has more to do with position of the boat in the water, center of gravity and steepness and angle of oncoming waves.
ALL Boston Whaler boats can capsize, and ALL Boston Whaler Boats will be more prone to capsizing in the period, no matter how short in duration that period is, in which the boat is "self bailing" after a significant amount of water has entered the boat.
This concept has NOTHING to do with reserve buoyancy and very little to do with WHERE the flotation in a hull is located. The reserve buoyancy and swamped capacity of a Whaler just give Whaler's superior "recovery time" to bail in such an event.
Regarding stability when swamped, I agree, the Whalers have an advantage here versus other makes, however, that does not mean that they don't or won't go over - especially in the sea states that are likely to lead to a swamping in the first place.
I do know how a BW works, and why I value the way that they are manufactured. In fact, it is the extra large transom notch, which you tout as important for evacuating water quickly, that is one of the reasons I prefer classics over post-classic hulls. Not only for the ability to discharge a superior amount of water in this situation, but also for allowing the ability to rig dual motors on the transom.
ahem...If you'll allow, "my notch is bigger than yours". heh, heh.
Does that make my transom notch "better" than yours? I don't think so, but based on how viscerally you react to many threads comparing the two design differences, you sure are prickly about it.
I have never said I am an expert about anything around here. There are folks here who are much smarter and have more expertise than I. I get by in life largely through intuition rather than direct knowledge...but one thing my intuition tells me:
Perhaps one of the true experts here will chime in and settle it - even if they do prove me quantitatively right, the thing is that qualitatively, it really depends on the skipper at that point to get you out safely.
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000