Cold weather pondering-hull design '70's SN

Here is Joe's build-
The fiberglass work does not start until page 4 but the whole thread is a great read

Greg,

Several on this site, Tim B., Joe F have used CAD to design and cut the stringers and such from composite board. They put the stringers back as composite.

Donald

Hi Keno,
Thanks for the sage advice. I'll start a new thread and not confuse this one. I was thinking about weight with the new floor/stringer/foam etc was concerned. That was the logic.

I'll start a new thread and not confuse this one.
Cheers!

Hey guys,
Im new to the group and have been loving the conversations through the forums. Thank you!

I recently picked up an 81 with less than 1K hours, and considering the age, its in good shape. As most of the early fiberglass SN its likely that ill be doing a stringer job in the near future. With this in mind, Im currently doing some research into Coosa board as a substitute for doug fur stringers. I've read many forums and understand the different arguments pro and con. One topic i haven't seen is the one where modern materials like Coosa are used with carbon fiber or kevlar. Any thoughts in this direction?

Additionally, I'm interested in fully documenting my rehab and recording the updates and improvements including pattern making for the stringers and related bulkheads. unless i can buy them form a reliable source. Any one know of such a thing? As I've worked in the design field for the past 25+ years, I'm computer capable. (CAD Sketch-up etc.)

Any info would be greatly appreciated.
   

Nobody acknowledged or said anything about that old thread I linked above about reducing weight. But recent posts have talked about weight reduction other than the engine components.

Just by hull adjustments look how Paul was able to change how his boat sat in the water.

I found working on my gen 2 SNWeights

Yes, I do plan on weighing the hull while motor/trans are out.
As nice as the boat appears to be, pretty sure it has picked up some ballast in 36 years.....

Doubtful you'll find an aluminum timing cover with a water pump mount but you could go with a crank mount pump. Ditch the circulation pump like HM did but be prepared that they cool differently.

I definitely would and did go to aluminum on at least the first three items..
Water pump housings and timing covers are a little more difficult to scrounge the proper parts in aluminum

Yea those exhausts and a stock intake are not on the light side, velvet drives are not either. Spend the bucks and get some Hi Tek's to lighten the load

Gary S wrote: Excellent idea Todd only one problem, Google Illinois route 176, he doesn't go any further south than that

Gary,
176?? It's more like Wi. 29!!!

Orlando76 wrote: [QUOTE=8122pbrainard] [QUOTE=Orlando76] I just can’t imagine a wood boat from the 60’s outperforming the advances and technology put in the 196. When I say 196, I mean a true 196 (TSC +) and not the NWZ. And I can’t imagine it tracking nearly as good with a 190lb skier heavy on the line. I would love to ski and drive one in the course as I’m always wanting to ski different boats especially vintage.. bring yours to Sunnyland and give me a pull so I can eat crow! There were definitely some vintage boats with great wakes but tracked like crap.

I think I limited my performance 'comparison' to specifically wake shape. No claim was made that a Dunphy X-55 would "outperform" a mid-to-late 90's era ski boat in every respect. Just that the wake height, shape, and softness would be on par with, or in some cases, exceed those craft. Let's keep things there.

Pete, If you read what he referenced you might notice the tracking fin option on the SN before the x55 ever existed

Pete, are you familiar with our reference section? What was the first year for the x55?

http://correctcraftfan.com/reference/bview.asp?id=52#image2

So, to summarize, we need a Dunphy/196 ski-off on a course that's 10 ft. away from shore and Larry's neighbor will film underwater hull performance from his sub.

I've never seen a Dunphy either. I think it's ok for me to say that I'm pretty confident a 196 is better to ski behind, just like Todd. Some things just are common sense. A lot more than raw wake height goes into evaluating a slalom boat.