Group Pod Build
- Thread starter EZZ70
- Start date
Captain PartyMarty
Crew Member
Hence the reason I am still running the Diesel Inboard even though I hate it 
ab1752
Crew Member
It worked, thanks...that looks like the pod that went on the Bertram or whatever that thing was at Pearson Marine. Hull extension vs the "stepped up" style on the Seasport seems to continue to be a circular discussion and I had leaned toward the stepped up version for a hull like mine but who knows, we will see how it pans out.
All handz on dek
Member
IMO, the hull extension has better flotation, planes faster and the trim tabs works less but you are correct that debate will be an on going battle
That Bertram dose look sweet, I would fasten a lower bunks on that trailer though, to support the pod that cantilever those twins for piece of mind insurance. I guess a stepped up pod would not be able to support the pod, unless it was removable
ab1752
Crew Member
I stalked the marina yesterday and looked at lots if pods including a grady 232 Most appear to be stepped style and if the idea is to help get the boat onto plane with the hull extension I think j am fine to go stepped since my hull planes very easily as it is now My guess is with the bertram having inboard with all that weight being removed mid ship they went hull extension to get it onto plane with the weight moved to the stern. Thanks for everyone's feedback.
Aces
Well-Known Member
I couldn't remember what hull you were looking to put a pod on but the extended hull pod on my 26 Hourston took the hull's performance to another level, especially in close together wind chop
ab1752
Crew Member
Awesome feedback, thanks. I believe there wasnt a lot of differences between the hourston 26 hulls. Ours is an island runner built in 2003 ad a point of reference. Many thanks
EZZ70
Well-Known Member
I don't have FaceBook, does he have a contact number by chance? PRD's price @ $5250 USD is too rich for me
I kinda like the pod to be stepped up a bit to allow for the transom drain's.
Last edited:
ReelSlim
Crew Member
The transom drain is exactly why they don’t do the full extension. It’s any easier add on to an existing hull. The step pod idea or motor bracket will work but like Fishtofino mentions the full hull extension is a big difference. Once you figure out what you are putting on for power etc I would go with the full hull extension especially if you are going to keep the boat after spending the time and money on the mods.....imoI don't have FaceBook, does he have a contact number by chance? PRD's price @ $5250 USD is too rich for me
Last edited:
High Time
Crew Member
As I am just on the brink of hauling up my Orca and starting the conversion from I/O to a pod I have also been struggling with which design of pod will work best on my boat. It is going to be custom built so we have the option of going either way. stepped or extension. Would really appreciate any feedback of what has been done on other similar hulls, Orcas,Sea Sports,Ospreys, etc. and what results and recommendations are out there. Only plan on doing this once and would like to get it right.
casper5280
Crew Member
EZZ70
Well-Known Member
Thank you, I saw this one as well...
This is my concern and again can someone with experience please educate me:
The Hourston was originally designed and intended to have a 1000lbs (motor and outdrive) sitting in the stern which makes the boat sit/settle in the water nicely for handling. If I were to change this by removing the 1000lbs and add a 600lbs outboard as well as adding a flotation/hull extension pod it changes the dynamics and intended design thus creating a vessel that is now very buoyant in the stern, am I correct?
If I were to attach a stepped pod, the buoyancy will decrease and allowing the vessel to return to its original position...?
Rain City
Crew Member
No because the weight is now further back. Assuming it's not a straight loss of 400lb. Depends where the fulcrum or centre point would have been designed to be? This was just my initial thought while reading this. I'm slightly above average but no genius.
salmonkiller01
Well-Known Member
Depends on the amount of flotation in a bracket Both create floatation while parked or at slow speeds(trolling) The size of the boxed in section will create the buoyancy.
A stepped bracket keeps the vessels running surface the same on plane the same as factory, as water runs past the hull it raises approximately 1 inch pre foot. The step allows this rise of water before getting to your prop. As the rise happens and turbulence caused by your hull rises before hitting your prop allowing cleaner water to run thru your prop being more efficient.
A bracket in which follows your hull line is essentially a hull extension. extended running surface. Where the bracket meets the hull on the bottom would have to be faired in perfectly to keep a turbulence to a minimum to have clean water running past your prop.
Stepped brackets are what I would recommend If you want more flotation get a larger chamber. Twin engine bracket drilled for single engine.
Another great function of a stepped bracket is as water raised approximately 1 inch per foot a, 30 inch set back bracket has the engine raised 3 inches higher than if it was attached to the hull. This allows the engine to trim all the way out of the water when parked on most engines and also when trolling in big chop it is nice to have the engines up that few extra inches in my opinion. Back trolling while jigging....
The guy in smoke builds beautiful brackets,
Last edited:
EZZ70
Well-Known Member
Awesome reply thx, what I personally am looking for is a pod that will keep all tings equal as intended design or a pod that will enhance performance from original... does that make sense?
I have only one try to get this correct, I can’t afford doing it twice
I read horror stories of too much flotation causing proposing... or that is my understanding of it.
I have only one try to get this correct, I can’t afford doing it twice
I read horror stories of too much flotation causing proposing... or that is my understanding of it.
salmonkiller01
Well-Known Member
porpoising is an issue for sure and I have dealt with it. only to realize lifting my engine higher fixed it I knew my engine was too low as the cavitation plate was buried at plane. Raise one hole and it is 60 percent better so will go up one more hole. That raises my engine 5 inches from the keel line. 20 hourston with a 30 inch stepped bracket 275 merc verado. If I was going with the hull extension I would build one on the boat fibreglassed extension. A bracket that extends the keel on your boat is going to need the boat for the build as it has to be perfect in line with the hull.Awesome reply thx, what I personally am looking for is a pod that will keep all tings equal as intended design or a pod that will enhance performance from original... does that make sense?
I have only one try to get this correct, I can’t afford doing it twice
I read horror stories of too much flotation causing proposing... or that is my understanding of it.
My grady seafarer had an armstrong bracket no porpoising
Someone did a 26 hourston here and they might be able to help out.
There is a guy in Sooke who has built a lot of brackets, i think the trick to getting it right is having one built by someone who knows what they are doing, and the guy in Sooke knows hours ton hulls, used to advertise on used victoria.
Albernifisher build
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/my-next-last-project-boat.58174/
porpoising explained a bit anyways
https://www.perfprotech.com/blog/bo...tips/how-to-prevent-your-boat-from-porpoising
the hull truth has a lot of info
Last edited:
Similar threads
