By McKenzieDriftBoat.com
Transom or not for the briggs design?
Having just completed our Grand trip with 2 14 foot boats in our fleet I can see that a bigger boat would be nice. While the small, low side full rocker boats did well a bigger straighter tracking boat would have advantages.
I was wondering what all of you Briggs builders think about the transom issue. If we remove the transom and pull the sides together at the stern it will raise the floor in back. What do all of you think about the wider lower bottom we get with the transom. I will never have 2 people in back and wonder what advantage there might be by not building a transom. I don't see adding length as a reasonable idea.
Just fishing for ideas and not sure what hull would suit me best. I may just stick with a 16 foot high side double ender with a section of flat spot to get a little less curve in the chine to make it spin a bit less.
I will say it was a blast running Horn and Hermit in a small boat.
I was wondering what all of you Briggs builders think about the transom issue. If we remove the transom and pull the sides together at the stern it will raise the floor in back. What do all of you think about the wider lower bottom we get with the transom. I will never have 2 people in back and wonder what advantage there might be by not building a transom. I don't see adding length as a reasonable idea.
Just fishing for ideas and not sure what hull would suit me best. I may just stick with a 16 foot high side double ender with a section of flat spot to get a little less curve in the chine to make it spin a bit less.
I will say it was a blast running Horn and Hermit in a small boat.
Views: 31
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Robb Grubb on -
Post Pictures, Pictures, Pictures!!!!??? Please...
-
Permalink Reply by lhedrick on -
Here are a few images from Soap Creek. The first is Kyle Frye in his replica of the Susie Too which he completed last Fall. It ran the Grand Last Dec and on our trip last week. The second is Jeremy Christensen in Desolation which is the same design as my boat. The design is Sandy's Honky Dory from montana-riverboats.com. We also had a 16 foot Tatman which made it's 3rd trip down the Grand. Jeremy and I both had good runs with a hitch or 2 but, as I said before the boat is a bit small for water that big. If I get another chance I will build a 16 foot high side boat. The 14 footer also is limited in what it will carry.
Kyle's boat has a flat spot with a significant section of the chine being parallel. His skill at the oars was a real pleasure to watch. He ran lines I didn't think were possible and did it so cleanly he hardly touched the oars after setting up.
We are still decompressing and should have more images from Granite and Lava in the days to come.
I really need to sell 2 boats. Not that I want to sell them but I need room so I can keep building. Nothing like going into the shop and trying something new. - Attachments:
-
-
KF_001.jpg, 159 KB -
jc_002.jpg, 150 KB
-
jc_003.jpg, 133 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Christensen on -
Just added a few photos to my page, more to come!!
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Dengler on -
Great seeing all of you out there! I went without the transom based on 2 local old dory guides input that they shuddered everytime during a downstream ferry the transom would get slapped hard by what they were trying to break through. I lost some room in the rear hatch for sure but with the rear seat decked over there was plenty of space. Total length from outside top of stem post to stern post 17'5".
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Peak on -
I did a (experimental) double ended Briggs with Mr. Fletcher's help. 17.5' LOA...I don't care about rear passenger space (fully decked stern), and I thought not having the "scoopy" stern might be nice in some situations (big waves, pulling upstream, etc)...
I used modified lines (Fletcher) on the side panels to stick with the 17' length, mitigate the raised floor effect, and maintain nice fair curves....I think simply extending the original Briggs lines and pulling the side panels in would result in a pretty weird looking boat...
-
Permalink Reply by lhedrick on
-
Hi Jeff,
Long time now since our Yampa run.
Too bad I can’t hook on to your West water trip. The foot well on my boat developed a crack which I need to get sealed and I still have to get everything unpacked from last week.
I have seen the photos of your boat and would really like to know more about how you and Rodger reworked the plans to remove the transom to make a double ender. There were a few times I wanted to Powell a run to break a lateral but, with a low side boat and a transom I generally didn’t do it. At Debendorff I did go right transom first but the lateral I had to go through was not that big. Since both sides of my boat came from 1 4X16 foot panel the sides leading to the stern and the stern itself are low. Even on good runs water was rolling over the decks. Each day about 2 gallon of water got into the center compartments as my hatches did not seal perfectly.
If you kept any of the detail about the changes you made to the side panels and frames it would be nice to see them. I have Rogers book and taken time to look at the plans for the Briggs boat. When I look at the flat view of the side panels with the upward arching cut at the chine edge it always amazes me that the boat finishes with such a curved chine at the stem. The only issue with the Briggs design I don’t really like it the 48 inch bottom. That might be what keeps me with the design I have now. I have built a 16 foot version of Carnage as a fishing platform. It would be very easy to do the same thing in a high side version and remove the transom and add a flat section of a few feet in the center.
-
Permalink Reply by Brad Dimock on -
I'm a transom man myself. Running commercially I've always found the double-enders a bit more awkward for passengers to get in and out of. And I still use my old Briggs removable transom to toss a motor on for lake crossings and such. In the high water of the mid-'80s when we had to blast backward through a nearly impenetrable wave, we found the transom boats had no more trouble than the double-enders in penetrating the wave--it's a pretty small factor compared to the mass of the boat. But mostly I just think the transom design looks way classier. There is, to my mind, some sort of traditional elegance in the tombstone transom that is lost in a double ender.
-
Permalink Reply by lhedrick on
-
Thanks Brad, the issue of having to blast through a lateral was kind of what I was after. I didn't really think about the mass of the boat helping to brake through a wave. My 14 footer is a low side type boat as the side panels are cut from 1 4 X 16 sheet. The transom is low and I had some worries about the stern getting plowed under a wave. A high sided longer boat would be a different deal. Like you I think the look of a boat with a transom is more elegant.
Those days of the 80's must have been something else.
© 2012 Created by Randy Dersham.
