Yeah, but who really wants this kayak anyway? [Archive] - Kayakfishingstuff.com Kayak Fishing Community Forums

beagle

08-01-2005, 06:11 AM

"They" all will. (lot's of folks)
IMHO
Let's look at the evelution on the fishing yak over the past 6 years. What was used then and what has happened since.
Cobra F&D was pretty much what a lot of folks started in, or some OK models. Now, much different. Now when a "newbie"(more and more each month without topping out yet) comes in and asks"What yak", look at the suggestions and look at the amount of folks who can give advice that 2 years ago were asking the same questions.
An interesting poll would be to see who has been yak fishing for more than 3 years that is still in the same yak and has not added to their fleet or wishes/ waiting for something better. How many have gone from the 12', to 14', and up, based on the performance of the yak while underway? Let us look at the Tarpon line up and ask how many have had a 120, or any 12' yak, and started up the ladder? The fishing lay outs are all close enough that it doesn't give you anything more in lay out capability by going up in length. What we get in length is speed and seaworthynees in bigger waters.
I would love to see the data from several different yak fishing sites as it pertains to new users logging in over the past 5 years and graph that. I think I have a pretty good feel for it as I have whatched the posting for over 6 years on 5 sites.
And I am convinced that put someone's but in most of the fishing yaks made today, give them a couple years, and put them in the craft of which we dream for an hour or so and they will "have" to have it.
Again, all one man's perspective.
You read it here every day. The same guys who 3 years ago were hyping certain models are now in something longer, faster, performance oriented.
It a natural progression in a sport such as this.

snook4

08-01-2005, 09:58 AM

Beagle, I think that you are right on point. http://kfs.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?s=418607442&a=ga&ul=811107247

Santiago II

08-01-2005, 12:48 PM

Good in theory but how do we prove it? What do you need to do to show manufacturers that this is a serious market. What do they need to know to make the right kayak for the market and not over do it?

beagle

08-01-2005, 01:56 PM

Gawd,
When I'm in a hurry my spelling is...bad.

Scott

08-01-2005, 03:08 PM

I think the market is probbly about 3-5 years behind the sport. I think it's a bit risky(an assumption on my part) for a manufacturer to go out and push the design beyond the general population. It's a big chance. Get one thing wrong, and the yak could be doomed...weight, length, cockpit layout, so many variable for so many paddlers. why risk it. why not make small changes over time, let the population age, then sell three or four yaks to an individual until "the yak" appears. If I were doing it, I'd wait for company A to come out then improve it with my product, yes comapny a will sell yaks, but hopefully I will get it right and sell more.
If the damn rotomolding process weren;t so costly, I think you;d see advancements happen faster. So, we need a new plastic/material that can be worked ina cheaper fashion, blow molded or vaccuum formed, something easier, cheaper, and quicker. And hey, while you're at it, lighter. Glass is cool, but you still need a form to work from. Scott

PS, how about ferrol cement http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Scott

08-01-2005, 03:09 PM

How about a semi rigid inflatable?

Eklutna

08-01-2005, 03:29 PM

I would like to see the HPFK built. I would get one. I wrote Eddyline and pointed them to the discussion on this forum. Who knows, maybe we might get a bite. Vacuumed formed Thermoplastic lined with fiberglass would make a mighty fine SOT, Light, stiff and inexpensive. I don’t want to see a one size fits all kayak. It is a Victorian concept. There is no such thing in the real world.

rwolson

08-01-2005, 03:30 PM

Scott brought up the point about roto-molding and the associated costs. If a manufacturer introduced a new material, strong, light and he could mold it faster and cheaper then I think we'd see the boats we want sooner.

We need another big space mission like going to teh moon to spin off new research and materials.

beagle made a good observation too. I'm on my third boat in three years. First boat gets you started, teases you, teaches you the fundamentals; like getting your first car. The next boat, you learn a little more and begin to focus on your true style of fishing and paddling. The third purchase moves toward your goals.

The big problem we have getting past the bean counters who wear stuffed white shirts and don't take risks.

SII, thnaks for keeping the flames going; I've learned a lot about boats, a bit about design and truly hope we get a great boat within the next couple of years.

Manufacturers, can you hear me now?

Santiago II

08-01-2005, 07:30 PM

If we keep the discussion going maybe someone in the right place will listen.

I have this gut feeling that we could get an overseas manufacturer to make us a limited run of glass kayaks for under $1400, but since everyone seems to lean toward poly for durabilty and cost, that really doesn't do much for us.

My concern with poly is weight. My Sea Dart is supposedly 72 lbs at 17 feet and fairly rigid. Now I don't really notice the weight (but then again I used to portage a 90+ lb canoes over extended distance before I discovered kayaks so this doesn't feel bad) but the weight factor keeps creeping up on us and will really kill marketing.

The 800 lb gorilla in the room is also Hobie. A more efficient fin on their Mirage drive and a real hull and they would take a huge chunk out of any potential market.

And, on top of everything, I don't know what the "consensus" kayak that we're talking about would even look like. I realize we can't have a "one size fits all" but they have to build something, so we need a marketable kayak. That's why I ask about "deal breakers" too. It would probably be easier to figure out what people really don't want to see in this kayak.

beagle

08-02-2005, 03:01 AM

The problems we face in considering vac forming material, for an SOT, is "draw". That is the amount of "stretch" of the material able to be pulled down(or up) into a cavity.
Envision that we are starting out with a flat sheet that will then be pulled into our shape. The farther we need to pull it, the thinner the corners and the wall leading down from the corners will be. The farther you draw, the thinner the corners and walls will be. We can overcome this by starting with a thicker/heavier piece, but are then adding cost and weight.
Also understand that the molds to do this, and equipment to run it are no different than the roto process.
The fastest and initially cheapest way to get a yak is the composite route. But not en mass, and not the price to the end user.

mrsinbad

08-02-2005, 05:05 AM

I agree with beable about the natural trend of yakkers to migrate to longer thinner yaks with higher performance and his comment on a composite hull for ease building and least capital invested.

ProwlerGuy

08-02-2005, 05:45 AM

Right on beagle! http://kfs.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?s=418607442&a=ga&ul=253102653

Respectfully, Prowlerguy sends

H20Dancin

08-02-2005, 07:00 AM

I am old to boats and boating but new to kayak fishing this year. My boat experience has taught me and everyone else that simply put "boats are expensive, no matter the size, type, or use and there is simply no way around it". I have an OK Prowler but am already seeing need for improvement and have "tinkered" in my garage and swimming pool with some strange ideas....Please all you seasoned experts out there, describe the ideal fishing yak for me and I will build it... for two reasons: 1) I want it for myself and 2)I have to believe that when it comes to our toys and leisure time activities, most folks are willing to pay the cost to get what they truly want...if it is made available. So tell me what you want and I will get on with making it available ...if I lose my shirt, so be it...I have spent and lost money on dumber things.

JEM

08-02-2005, 08:11 AM

16.5' x 26"

Eklutna

08-02-2005, 08:12 AM

H2Odancing

I met a guy who runs a business in Destin Fl that repairs fiberglass boats, makes molds for ornamental concrete and makes floating beer taverns and concessions stands. I think he could make about anything out of fiberglass. I bet he could make your kayak for you. A friend of mine in Crestview Fl knows him well and if you need someone to make your kayak let me know and I will get you the information.

Santiago II

08-02-2005, 09:31 AM

JEM,

Would adding another foot to the length create any significant gain in speed?

SII

JEM

08-02-2005, 11:49 AM

It would improve your length-to-width and other ratios for speed. Increase in wetted surface area should not effect the net increased gain.

That's one is being prototyped in Texas with the intent of going into production. Hull very boxy in the cockpit but will not remain that way.

Santiago II

08-02-2005, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by JEM:
It would improve your length-to-width and other ratios for speed. Increase in wetted surface area should not effect the net increased gain.

That's one is being prototyped in Texas with the intent of going into production. Hull very boxy in the cockpit but will not remain that way.

Awesome! We need more of this stuff!

Scott

08-02-2005, 07:30 PM

You;re right about not "a" boat for the masses. But if you target the 165 pound market and figure 20 percent either way for performance, the market the 230 pound market and build in the same 20% either way, you get two yaks that can have the same pedigree with slight modifications. Could look damn near identical. Market to those two "bodies, and I think you cover the damn near whole spectrum of weights. Now go at both of them with tthe same attitude, length, width and speed. AND FUNCTIONALITY. donlt build me a hull that is mated to a lousy deck.

17.5 ft, 25inches wide for 165'rs, and 27 inches wide for the 230'rs. sure, the 27 incher will be a bit slower, but us bigger guys have more muscle mass to keep up http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Take the tarpon 160i, make it glass for the 230 crowd, that boat handles well with my 245 in it. Very happy, then add 1 ft and remove 2 inches in width. Could be done, easily I think. S

rwolson

08-03-2005, 01:37 PM

I like Scott's idea because then a boat's not limited to a specifc group. A lot of us bigger guys would love some the other boats, but because we a bigger cannot fit in the boat.

6' 235 and I can bench press my weight when I'm not tired

Santiago II

08-04-2005, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by rwolson:
I like Scott's idea because then a boat's not limited to a specifc group. A lot of us bigger guys would love some the other boats, but because we a bigger cannot fit in the boat.

6' 235 and I can bench press my weight when I'm not tired

Scott and I are checking out a boat that has modular seating in the production phase so that the same hull will accomodate large and medium sized paddlers.

Elmer

08-05-2005, 05:47 AM

I think santiago hit the nail on the head with his question.
Besides, manufacturers and designers have come up with thousands of kayak models (yes,thousands)in the past 50 years and there's very little room for real progress within the kayak framework since it had reached its limits.
There's a new boat review in Wavelength magazine that's also mentioning fishing in the context of wavewalk's W1 August issue of Wavelength magazine - 7 megabyte file (http://wavelengthmagazine.com/2005/AS05.pdf)
Warning -it's a big file to download.
The article is on page 37
Maybe this could help broaden our horizons.

E.

Santiago II

08-05-2005, 06:36 AM

Elmer,

I think we've still got plenty of areas that can be improved in traditional style boats. The cat style hulls have significant limitations at least for our purposes. So far nobody has a made a useable cat style, I would include the W1 in that generalization.

JEM

08-05-2005, 07:49 AM

Wavelength magazine gets most of its articles written by its paying advertisers. They don't accept input from non-paying sources unless they don't have enough info from the advertisers.

Lots of good info in that magazine, but the reader should beware when the article praises specific brands.

Elmer

08-05-2005, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by JEM:
Wavelength magazine gets most of its articles written by its paying advertisers. They don't accept input from non-paying sources unless they don't have enough info from the advertisers.

Lots of good info in that magazine, but the reader should beware when the article praises specific brands.
JEM,
This is a plain lie.

JEM

08-05-2005, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Elmer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JEM:
Wavelength magazine gets most of its articles written by its paying advertisers. They don't accept input from non-paying sources unless they don't have enough info from the advertisers.

Lots of good info in that magazine, but the reader should beware when the article praises specific brands.
JEM,
This is a plain lie.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wavelength is featuring an article about wooden boat building in their next issue. I contacted them regarding contributng and was told, by the editor, that his advertisers get first crack at contributing to the articles.

In my opinion, I made no false statement. Just passing along what I've learned.

beagle

08-05-2005, 08:44 AM

JEM,
You are indeed a gentleman.
http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JEM

08-05-2005, 08:48 AM

Thinking about it, I feel obligated to mention that I do NOT know this to be true about product reviews. I didn't ask about that.

Elmer

08-05-2005, 09:42 AM

The guy who wrote this review in Wavelength magazine is one of the leaders of the sea-kayaking and boat-building communities here in New England, and highly appreciated for the educational work he's been doing in these fields.
The other contributors to this magazine are leaders in their fields as well and well known for their work.
I find JEM's accusations to be highly objectionable.

E.

JEM

08-05-2005, 10:08 AM

I'm not slighting Wavelength at all. I enjoy reading it.

Their editor Alan explained their article contribution policy to me via e-mail. That poicy is that advertisers get first crack at article contribution.

Lots of magazines do that. I don't see how stating that policy smears anyone when it's common knowledge.

Anyway, we're hi-jacking the thread which is not my intent. Let's stop and move discussion to some bicker and banter forum.

Elmer

08-05-2005, 10:59 AM

I think the speculation of motive is a bit over the top. Maintain a civil approach if you want to continue to post here

JEM

08-05-2005, 11:07 AM

I invite anyone to contact Wavelength Magazine and ask about writing articles for them. And as I stated, it might be different for product reviews.

If I'm wrong, I'll full on stand up and say I'm wrong. I have no problem with being set straight.

But from the e-mail the editor sent, it's paying advertisers that get the first chance.

Appologies to any site/magazine that feels I've degraded. Not my intent.

Hell, Jon or Joey, delete all my posts in this thread if you feel they are wrong. I have no problem with that.

Can we get back to the original thread subject now?

Elmer

08-05-2005, 12:54 PM

OK, I think this point went far enough....back to the topic at hand

JEM

08-05-2005, 01:01 PM

OK, I think this point went far enough....back to the topic at hand

Eklutna

08-05-2005, 03:03 PM

Is it a full moon or what?

Elmer

You have made your point. Take a chill pill. It will be OK. Let’s get back to the discussion about the HPFK. (You can always send JEM a PM and express you thoughts)

Back to the discussion;

After listening to JonS on his radio interview I would like to see the insulated Fish storage area he was talking about in the HPFK. My foot wells are not big enough for my feet and a Rock Fish at the same time.

I have been Emailing companies with my thoughts why they should manufacture a purpose built Fishing kayak for the East Coast. I have heard of others doing this, so I started firing off emails as well. Lets all do it. Force of numbers will have a telling effect.

CPP

08-05-2005, 03:11 PM

JonS enough is enough.

Santiago II

08-05-2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Eklutna:

After listening to JonS on his radio interview I would like to see the insulated Fish storage area he was talking about in the HPFK. My foot wells are not big enough for my feet and a Rock Fish at the same time.

I have been Emailing companies with my thoughts why they should manufacture a purpose built Fishing kayak for the East Coast. I have heard of others doing this, so I started firing off emails as well. Lets all do it. Force of numbers will have a telling effect.

Have you seen the fish box in the Dorado? Scott posted some good pics. Nice addition to a kayak. http://kfs.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/948607442/m/2291096851/r/9531029851#9531029851

JEM

08-06-2005, 04:37 AM

I have a question...and worth mentioning is I'm no super yak fisherman. I mostly drown worms for the smallies around the local resevoirs.

I've heard over 16' is too hard to fish from because you can't reach an average sized pole tip around the bow.

Any thoughts on that?

Santiago II

08-06-2005, 05:41 AM

JEM,

You can work around just about any boat length, especially if you can turn you boat with the fish. Certainly longer rods and shorter boats have advantages but it's all relative. Besides, if you fish with light action rods less than 6 1/2 feet it's hard to sweep them around any 12-14 foot boat.

JEM

08-06-2005, 06:04 AM

good points!

JimW

08-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Sometimes the rod goes in the water, Matt, and you play them that way until you get the yak turned or they run back t'other way again.

beagle

08-08-2005, 03:01 AM

It may be nice to be able to get your rod over the bow, but not a major part of this equation.

Eklutna

08-08-2005, 05:47 PM

I was think about the HPFK when I saw a post where someone lashed some pool noodles to the side of there kayak to add stability. It seemed a crude idea that just might work. This could have been thought of before but I think a refinement of this idea might make a narrow HPFK more fishable. My idea would be to put two deployable pontoons hinged to either side of the kayak. The pontoons would be attached next to the seat well and have a piano hinge (SS) that runs for about three feet. The pontoons would create a deep seat well for the kayaker when stowed. The kayak would be narrow and fast. When additional stability was needed you would just hinge the pontoons over the side creating a additional eight inches of total width of the kayak. The sides of the kayak would now be flush with the seat and you could easily sit side saddle. The kayak would have enhanced stability with the pontoons deployed. Some sort of latch would be needed to keep the pontoons locked in place.

JEM

08-09-2005, 03:37 AM

That's a neat idea. What would concern me the most is the strength of the hinge and the needed hull strength to support it.

I'm kicking around a deployable sponson type idea. Would use and 8' aluminum pole the would mount behind the seat in a fashion like a canoe thwart.

Done properly, the pole could be used for a sail mast as well.

The problem with this idea is the floats on the ends of the sponsoon would have to be stowed somwhere taking up storage space.

Eklutna

08-09-2005, 04:52 AM

JEM

I was thinking that most of the load would be carried by the Locking mechanism. This would be something like a bolt on a door and made out of ¼” by 1 ½” aluminum bar stock. The big problem would be that it would make the kayak complicated and that means additional cost of manufacture.

Scott

08-09-2005, 05:58 AM

There are actually, somewhere in this system, old discussions of just that. We were looking at adding sponsons to our swinfs. Something that would lie tight and out of the water to the stern of the yak, then when deployed, would settle out and provide triangular support. Problems with torque, another place to catch things, etc, kind of doomed it. But the RAM outrigger works pretty well from reports here. Scott

Eklutna

08-09-2005, 11:45 AM

Scott

I am talking about two sponsors that fold out on hinges like a glove box in the center console of your car. The sponsors when folded closed would provide additional freeboard when underway. When deployed they would provide additional stability and would be close to flush with the seat. I am not talking about amah hulls and akeas.

Santiago II

08-09-2005, 06:04 PM

It's not a bad idea. I would like to see it sketched out so we could think about the pro's and con's.

Eklutna

08-09-2005, 09:15 PM

Santiago II

I will see what I can do. Do you have the ability to open a AutoCAD 14 drawing.

Santiago II

08-10-2005, 04:27 PM

Eklunta,

I don't have that program. Is there anyway to open it without it?

Simon Everett

01-20-2006, 01:11 PM

WOOOOW! SLOW DOWN A MINUTE http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aren't we getting away from ourselves here a bit? I thought half the charm of fishiing from a kayak was in its simplicity. All these gizmos and gadgets you are discussing are nothing more than ways of correcting poor design!

Get the initial design of the hull correct and there is no stability problem, no real speed or ease of paddling problem. The hurdle you have to overcome is in your own heads http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The polythene kayak market has coloured your thinking so much that you have lost sight of the initial concept. The originators of the kayak built very fine beamed craft of a length that was about 3x the paddlers height - so in the region of 16 or 17 feet. These kayaks took them across cold seas and were stable enough to fish from, hunt seals and in parties of a few could even tackle hunting whales! Now tell me you need all that stability to deal with a 30lb fish!! NO, you need to get to be able to kayak better, that's all!

The best fishing kayak will be slim, low seated, be between 15 and 16 feet in length - with a short overhang to keep the waterline length up. Anything longer than this and it becomes unwieldly both on and off the water - don't spout touring lengths at me - they only go in more or less straight lines from one place to another. Beam will be fine, but not ultra slim at about 24 or 25 inches to maintain the performance. A small amount of rocker will help her turn easily. The detailing can be left to the individual so it suits their particular requirements - a fly fisherman doesn't need a baitwell, or rod holders. They would benefit from an enclosed rod storage system though.

Ring any bells?

Santiago II

01-20-2006, 07:02 PM

Simon,

I can get about 7 mph from the Dorado and 7.7 mph from the Skua. Can you envision a way to get another 10% out of the Dorado by changing any aspects of its design without making it quite as lively as the Skua.

Simon Everett

01-21-2006, 03:24 PM

Santiago II - plain sailing really http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/sail_boat.gif

Lets look at the two kayaks and see where the performance has been lost.

Skua first of all is 5.3m = 17' 5"
with a beam of 58cm = 21 1/2"
and she weighs 22kgs = 49lbs give or take.

Those are pretty impressive stats for a sea kayak and put the Skua up there with the QCCs Nigel Dennis's and P&Hs of this world. The fact that you can come anywhere close to that paddling efficiency is testimony to the design efficiency of the Dorado hull. Especially when you consider the carrying convenience of the crate, fish hold and then in hull hatches too.

By comparison the Dorado is 15' 9" with a 24 1/2" beam but weighs in at 28kgs = 62lbs!! Those luxuries of extra rolling resistance and carry convenience cost dear in the weight department. A little bit lost here (4%), a little bit lost there (4%) and a little bit somewhere else (2%) soon adds up and before you know it that 10% figure has disappeared - an aweful lot more in most other fishig kayaks cases!!!

Now, your original question to me was could I see a way of getting that 10% back again. Well the answer is if you want the luxuries that come with the Dorado - the crate facility and the excellent fish hold facility - then you are going to have to pay for them. In simple physics there is no such thing as a free lunch - you have to pay for something somewhere else.

Howeve - if you can do away with the fish hold, and put up with a little bit less resistance to rolling in the form of a narrower beam then Leon has already done the job for you - in fact he did it before he brought out the Dorado. It is called a Pelican http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/thumbsup.gif

Look at the stats for this inbetweenie - a SOT that gets used for diving and angling uses but with damn near touring performance that is within a gnats whisker of the Skua (gives away about 5%)
4.75m long = 15' 7"
62cm beam = 24"
weighs only 23kgs = 50lbs 8ozs

There you have it - make a hybrid between the Pelican and Dorado. The longer hull of the Dorado keeping the crate and making a smaller fish hold to keep weight penalty down, with the narrower beam of the Pelican and I think you would come very, very close to the ideal. Certainly in the 7.4/7.5 bracket on your scale anyway. The huge fish hold - which is totally gelcoated within - adds a huge weight penalty in the grand scheme of things - it doesn't sound much when you say 12lbs - but on 51lbs otherwise, that is an increase of 23% of the weight of the kayak!!!!! Significant in anyones language.

It is the same with cars - if you want luxury and speed - you pay for it at the gas pump (not that you lot would notice any difference in your 4 miles per gallon guzzlers http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/hammer.gif We are stiving for 50mpg over here - gas is now nearly $7.50 per gallon http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/banghead.gif
http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/cookoo.gif

Santiago II

01-21-2006, 06:49 PM

Good point Simon

So what would you gain/lose by stretching that kayak another 0.5 meters?

And what if we did an epoxy lay-up to save a few pounds?

Simon Everett

01-22-2006, 12:40 PM

It would be more cost effective at the makers end to make the fish box smaller - that is a seperate moulding, so cheaper/easier to modify. The original could still be offered as an option.

How about just having the rectangular chute area retained and the remaining fordeck area as a closed area hold with big access hatch - like everything else on the market. That would save probably 8 of the 12lbs!

If you did that configuration with the Pelican hull - and stretch that one 0.5m (about 19") but keep the beam the same - then you would have a handy sized stowage box between your legs, light weight and a crate facility - would that be sufficient for most needs?

If so, you would have a very fast kayak - 7.5 on your Richter scale, and still have plenty of convenience and fishability - at an affordable price.

For materials you would be better just going to vinylester resins over polyester, and that means jacking the price up by about 30% in the process!

How does that sound?

Santiago II

01-22-2006, 03:48 PM

Now that sounds like a boat.

Of course I would miss that huge fishbox that I can store paddles and fishing rods inside. I wonder if there's a creative way to have access to the foredeck storage area from the cockpit just so long items can be stored for surf launching/landings.

How about a hatch access to the foredeck from the fishbox?

I've just been detailing my Dorado today.

Making the fishbox more watertight has become a favorite past time. And I replaced a few hatches so I can have a water tight, semi-permanent, fish finder set-up. I'm looking at RAM mounts right now (this boat had the flush mounts omitted).

I can't wait to find some surf and big fish when the weather warms up. The boat will be ready to go.

Simon Everett

01-23-2006, 01:41 PM

I like the sound of that myself!

I like your idea of access from within the loose box. How about a spring hinged flap opened by a toggle cord - put your bits down through (perhaps a tube for rods closed at the far end, then you still have a totally closed hull)then the fish hatch lid shuts down to make it as watertight as doesn't matter. My Dorado hatch lid only lets in a cupful if I play capsize drills anyway.

I think the weight saved from having a small loose box instead of the massive fish hold would gain you 3% or 4% of the lost 10%. The longer, slimmer hull of a stretched Pelican would get you very close to the Skua, with a useful stowage area and a crate. Plenty for most folks - and access to the hull as per now.

Simon Everett

01-23-2006, 01:50 PM

How have you done this semi-permenant fish finder setup Santiago?

I have been racking my brains over how to fit mine. The Tx position is easy - straight down through the hatch behind the seat. Perfect location and easy access. Then run the cable forward in the hull. This means drilling a bloody great hole somewhere to pull the end of the cable through though - the plug connector is 21mm (3/4") on the end. I am loath to cut a big hole in the fishbox just to take a piece of flex!
The Display unit is the easy bit - now that i have seen those Lexan boxes. I shall mount the display ON the lexan box! Battery encased within, angle bracket on the lid. Drill a hole for the power cable and it is all self contained - except for that damned Tx cable!!

I don't want to bring it out through the deck. I can't work out a neat route for it, so it has stayed in the box for over a year!!

It just goes to show, you don't need a fish finder! The other plan was to come out through the cutting board (the half circle astern of the fish hatch)- but then you have the problem of loose flex about the place. I have looked at running it along BESIDE the fish box lid on the edge of the coaming. This does look possible, need to find some nice clips to keep the cable tidy though.

Any thoughts?

Santiago II

01-23-2006, 06:49 PM

Simon,

I'm really big on reversable modifications. I just finished a water tight and reversible FF mount with thru hull internal trandsducer set-up. No hole in the deck except for a 1/4" hole in the upper deck of the fishbox.

I have a removeable FF mounted to a permanent RAM base forward of the fishbox hatch. The RAM mount is done with a single 1/4 bolt so it can be easily removed as well. The RAM mount is gasketed with 1/8" neoprene rubber so the deck doesn't get scratched.

The FF and battery are mounted in a consolidated unit (battery goes in a Pelican box). All mounted on a RAM FF mounting unit.

The transducer cable runs from the forward area along the side of the boat (next to the deck loops with cable ties) to the hatch behind the seat.

I replaced all the 6" hatches with Beckson Screw hatches (most watertight hatches I've found so far). I also gasketed and sealed all the hatches and replaced all the rivets with SS screws.

I have an extra 6" hatch that I will put in the forward hatch of the Skua so I can swap out the center of the hatch when I want to move the FF around.

That's where the fun begins. I got a Cable Clam that mounts in the center of the 6" hatch behind the seat. I run the transducer wire thru the Cable Clam and thru the hatch, totally watertight and removeable with the center of the hatch.

The tranducer plugs into a closed cell neoprene block sealed to the hull, inside, just behind the seat. The block has a transducer shaped cut out. Just fill the cutout with water and plug it in. Solid and stays in even if you roll.

I'll get some pics for you.

Santiago II

01-23-2006, 07:17 PM

Here's the Monitor/battery

Santiago II

01-23-2006, 07:19 PM

Here's the hatch/cable set-up.

I just slapped this together for the pictures so it's not as clean as it would be in actual use.

Simon Everett

01-24-2006, 12:48 PM

Now why the hell couldn't I think of that? http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/banghead.gif

The display end is OK, got that sussed (going to just use the box, no RAM mount)strap it to the fish hatch lid. It isn't much to buy a spare hatch cover moulding - especially in orange!! So I don't mind drilling it for some strap eyes to attach the FF set up to. I can't see me selling her.

It was getting the big plug of the Tx cable through the deck that was causing me so many headaches. You have given me a massive dose of Paracetamol over that one. I have loads of Tx cable - that is why I was trying to get rid of some!! I can slot the hatch cover and slide the cable in - just the edge for engh for the cable. Then a blob of silicon will keep the water out. In fact, just thought of another way! A slotted rubber bung and a larger hole - do the hatch up then jam the bung down in the hole. A rubber bung from a wine making demijohn should do it.
Something to work on now - thanks a lot!

Santiago II

01-24-2006, 05:18 PM

The cable clam just squeezes a rubber stopper around the cable. You could easily do it yourself with a 3/4" hole thru the hatch and a hole-sized rubber stopper.

Just like you've suggested......

Drill a cable sized hole in a rubber stopper and cut from the edge of the stopper to the hole. Pass the transducer cable thru the 3/4" hole, put the rubber stopper around the cable and force the rubber stopper in the hole in the hatch. The compression will close the hole and the slit in the stopper and you'll have a water-tight seal.

If I had though about it, I could have saved 24.00 on the cable clam.