Ongoing C19 questions...

Power Boats only. Please include the boat type in your question.
fallguy1000
* Bateau Builder - Expert *
* Bateau Builder - Expert *
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by fallguy1000 »

All fittings must be accessible and not behind permanent boat structures. So long as the tee is accessible, I see no problem with it per the laws. Consider it cracking, what happens.

All fittings must not dissolve in gasoline; so the fitting must be solvent proof. Easy to test. If you go to a metal fitting, it must be grounded.

I see no reason in the law to step up the hose. Except that perhaps a surveyor could be a nit and say each tank requires its own 5/8 hose at which point, you are back to two outlets.

Bonding wires are not allowed under clamps, so I don't even know how you'd bond to a clamp unless under the screw which just seems wonky as hell to me. I think you'd have to use a bonding strap, but not for an isolated clamp; only a metal tee.
My boat build is here -------->

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=62495

User avatar
Jaysen
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 6498
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:59 am
Location: St Helena Island, SC
Contact:

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by Jaysen »

Here's where I see the need coming from my recent work at marina...

You are filling a tank. The gets full/burps into the vent. At that same time the other tank is sloshing or venting for other reasons. You've just created a much higher pressure in the single vent tube if it is not oversized. With it oversized the second tank venting unexpectedly would be less of a problem.

You have the same problem if you are feeding motors and you can't get air into the tank fast enough. This could also be exasperated by sloshing in the tanks.

All the multi-tank setups I've seen do separate vents with the venting lower than the fill (prevents overfill spill on deck a bit while dramatically increasing the angst of the local DNR). I'll try to ask the yard engineering if there is a solid reason not to use a Y. That will be a couple days though...
My already completed 'Lil Bit'. A Martens Goosen V12 set up to sail me to the fishing holes.
Currently working on making a Helms 24 our coastal cruiser.
“Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens” wrote:Eat a live frog first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you the rest of the day.
Jaysen wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:44 pm I tried to say something but God thought I was wrong and filled my mouth with saltwater. I kept my pie hole shut after that.

Dan_Smullen
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: VA

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by Dan_Smullen »

Jaysen wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:54 am Here's where I see the need coming from my recent work at marina...

I'll try to ask the yard engineering if there is a solid reason not to use a Y. That will be a couple days though...
All relevant for sure. Thank you for that. I'm looking for the reason "to not to". Let me know if you get a chance to ask him. Thanks.

Dan_Smullen
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: VA

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by Dan_Smullen »

Scratching my head in unfamiliar territory, mocking up the splash well on the back the C19. 33” wide, 30” deep per plans. Red scribble indicates frame and seat. Black line up the far side represents the frame. Black line on the inside represents the bottom of the well.

I’d like to push the front of the well back to reclaim some deck space, but need to look into how much clearance a 115 will need.

Will build it all with 1/2” okuome, glassed all around with 12oz biax but would like to bulk up the sides and front of the well to 2” thick, basically for aesthetics.

Is foam the best choice to add 1-1/2” in thickness? What type?

The folks at CarbonCore, which is right up the road, suggest using plastic honeycomb as the most economic option $119 for a 4x8 of 30mm. This way I'm getting the designed structure of the plywood/glass, but getting bulk from a relatively light material that can be glassed over.

Had originally thought about 2 layers of 1/2" ply separated by 1" cavity, and filling it with home store blue or pink foam, but have since adopted the thought that this will be too heavy. Why double up on ply, which is the heaviest material to use.

9185

Thoughts on any of this?

TomTom
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:29 am
Location: East Africa

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by TomTom »

How about just a clamping board along the top to get your thickness? The original C19 design had this. Am assuming you want 2” to match the engine “clip thingys”? You would also only need to do this in the center portion the vertical motorwell support frames.

I went round and round with my boat trying to get more deck space in a similar thought process to you. … is your engine a long shaft? That will let you squeeze the motorwell bulkhead back a little bit - as the engine will tilt up a little higher relative so you might squeeze an extra inch or two back before the motorwell bulk head touches the engine cowling…. But the main dimension is to find this one … L7 for your particular 115.


Image


On a Yamaha it is 21.9” - so you can gain at least 7 inches from the plans and still have the engine fit.

I wanted to be even closer to the transom and I made a cut out/ tray where the engine lifts into because I really wanted the extra space and be able to stand right over the back of the boat. This let me push the “bulkhead” way back on either side of the engine. I think it is closer to 17 inches now. I really like being that much closer to the transom and am very happy with my decision.

Dan_Smullen
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: VA

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by Dan_Smullen »

Wow. Thanks TomTom! This is exactly what I’ve been looking for. The point at L7 and H7 is the magic spot.

I zoomed in on your tray/engine well a number of times and saw what you did. I can’t wait for you to get her in the water.

TomTom
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:29 am
Location: East Africa

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by TomTom »

Dan_Smullen wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:57 am

I zoomed in on your tray/engine well a number of times and saw what you did. I can’t wait for you to get her in the water.
The other thing is that if you put a “gunwale” there (not sure the technical term) but have the open side facing into the boat - stupidly on my last build it was the other way around - so not only did I lose the 8” width of the “gunwale” but also my toes were up against the bulkhead which effectively made it harder to get close to the back.

If I wasn’t putting a “gunwale” at the back and I had a long shaft motor I would be perfectly comfortable just cutting a small section out of the top of the bulkhead to accept the engine when it is fully tilted up. Cutting that bit of the bulkhead down a little let’s you move it back quite a long way. From a safety stand point it would not worry me, but I have seen some where there is a sliding piece that fits in there when at sea. I think the early Sea Crafts and Makos did this.

22” to the transom is a lot closer than 30”, but 17” makes you feel like you can literally lean right over the back. Much easier for setting a downrigger or putting a rod round and over the engine.

fallguy1000
* Bateau Builder - Expert *
* Bateau Builder - Expert *
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by fallguy1000 »

Don't forget you need access to the lower bolts of the engine mounting unless you stud it now.

If you make the splashwell 2" thick; you have to cut that out for the access plates.
My boat build is here -------->

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=62495

Dan_Smullen
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: VA

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by Dan_Smullen »

TomTom wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:58 am
Dan_Smullen wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:57 am

I zoomed in on your tray/engine well a number of times and saw what you did. I can’t wait for you to get her in the water.
The other thing is that if you put a “gunwale” there (not sure the technical term) but have the open side facing into the boat - stupidly on my last build it was the other way around - so not only did I lose the 8” width of the “gunwale” but also my toes were up against the bulkhead which effectively made it harder to get close to the back.

If I wasn’t putting a “gunwale” at the back and I had a long shaft motor I would be perfectly comfortable just cutting a small section out of the top of the bulkhead to accept the engine when it is fully tilted up. Cutting that bit of the bulkhead down a little let’s you move it back quite a long way. From a safety stand point it would not worry me, but I have seen some where there is a sliding piece that fits in there when at sea. I think the early Sea Crafts and Makos did this.

22” to the transom is a lot closer than 30”, but 17” makes you feel like you can literally lean right over the back. Much easier for setting a downrigger or putting a rod round and over the engine.
Took a little time to re-read your response. Thank you for it. Definitely will appreciate the toe kick space under the gunnel.

I'm making moderate adjustments to the plans. I'm pushing down the large ~30"x~30" sections of deck that flank the motor well as designed, and turning them into seats. Also splitting the last frame into 3 parts, the 2 outboard sections of the last frame pushed back a little further than the center section, which will be the forward bulkhead of the splash well. This bulkhead and the 2 sides of the well will get built up to 2". Clamping board and transom cutout are per plans, plus a little extra thickness.

With you set up, it looks like you could almost accommodate twin 60s or 75s. Was this the intent?

TomTom
* Bateau Builder *
* Bateau Builder *
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:29 am
Location: East Africa

Re: Ongoing C19 questions...

Post by TomTom »

Took a little time to re-read your response. Thank you for it. Definitely will appreciate the toe kick space under the gunnel.
The C19 feels like a big boat … but it’s still only 19 feet long - I certainly noticed it start to shrink by the time I had added the console and the leaning post.

A part of me reckons you should lay out your console and leaning post/ seat first and see how much space you have left and work backwards.

For me anyways even the extra “toe space” would have been noticeable/ significant

I'm making moderate adjustments to the plans.
Remember structurally I believe that whole bulkhead frame can go back to within 6” of the transom - ie if you were adding a motor bracket. So I don’t think you can be fairly bold with these changes up to that point.

I'm pushing down the large ~30"x~30" sections of deck that flank the motor well as designed, and turning them into seats. Also splitting the last frame into 3 parts, the 2 outboard sections of the last frame pushed back a little further than the center section, which will be the forward bulkhead of the splash well.
I quite like this idea - my only comment is that certainly in my boat people seem to gravitate/ hang onto/ hang around the console to the side of it (sitting on a gunwale) or behind the leaning post as this is where the shade is and they can hear all the BSing going on up there!
This bulkhead and the 2 sides of the well will get built up to 2".
I am not sure I understand. Is this 2” above the “seat” either side? Or thickness?

Clamping board and transom cutout are per plans, plus a little extra thickness.
With you set up, it looks like you could almost accommodate twin 60s or 75s. Was this the intent?
Yes - this was my exact intention. If I ever sell the boat here, almost no one would buy a boat to take offshore without twin engines - that is not the “culture” here. Don’t worry we have had plenty of boisterous bar room discussions about why a single is better - but we have no coast guard and that is the mind set … twins or no go!

I also wanted to have enough space to fit my kicker next to the main engine if it was needed. It lives in the front locker the rest of the time for weight/ balance reasons and so it doesn’t get in the way and corrode unnecessarily. It will be a tight squeeze if I need it! I could have been a little more generous!

I also - and again this is probably personal - but have found we used those rear side lockers very little - so for me it was not a big deal to lose that space.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests