Integral SeaCraft bracket

[JohnB]

I am looking at redoing the transom of my Sceptre this winter, and leaning toward a bracket design. I like the Hermco SeaMark bracket, but they think an awful lot of that bracket ($$$). It is still an option though.
I saw someone that took a Mako 261 and put an "integral" bracket on the back when they redid the transom on it. Anyone every seen this done with a SeaCraft? Any pros/cons to putting an integral bracket on one of these boats? Something that looks like the SeaMark shape with an integral construction looks like it would be an interesting idea.

[Captn C]

I like the idea. If I ever get to the point I can repair my SeaCraft I was thinking about doing away with the euro transom and building a bracket for the engines. That way I could pick up two more feet of cock pit space, plus couple extra feet of running surface.

I have it drawn up, but I can't touch the boat until the.....you know is over with. I am planning on building/extending it out of Coosa Board.

I am going to have to have the deck removed to all the repairs under the deck, so I am planning to bump up the size of the fuel tank(from 166 to close to 200 gallons), the transom has to be re-done so I might as well remove the euro rear deck. So I'll bring the height of the rear cock pit area up to normal gunnel height. Then I want to have the bracket built into the rear of the boat.

After I get done with my SeaCraft I'll remove the SeaCraft name and plan to replace it with Captn C-craft.

[Rich]

There was a guy who used to post under "Desperado", that had a shop called Desperado boat works. He had a 23' 1972 that he built an integral bracket for. I don't know what happened to him??? I think at one point he was offering to hold a class on seacraft repair. Apparently he has redone a bunch of them. His website doesn't seem to work anymore. Search the user list for his email address.

[Rufridr069]

I spoke to soon about Francis....After the storm I went to take out my drain plug and the whole damn bung came off. So it looks like I am doing a transom job (maybe thats why the previous owner said the trim tabs fell off. I took off the cut out trim and found unlaminated fiberglass mat. So Im pretty sure the transom is shot or the person who re did the transom did a bad job.

I used a fiber optics wand and checked out the forward hull and found all the heavy woven roven in tact and the stringers looked great so Im not going to redo the floor except for the fuel hatch and live well hatch.

So here is my thoughts and please let me know what ya'll think. My SC is an '84 23cc....I want to make it a full transom (no cut out) and make the stern look like an I/O but with a bracket mounted O/B. The splash board would actually be horizontal cabinet door.....Am I making any sense? If so continue...The fiberglass work is no problem Seafarer in Ft. Lauderdale sells sheets of fiberglass so Im thinking if I enclose the transom area with plywood and laminated the fiberglass to it and fair it out it should look good...right? so Im asking....am I on crack or can this be done? And what about a transom door? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[JohnB]

I am thinking about removing the storage hatches on either side, and putting a full transom across the back where the motor is currently mounted. This would increase the cockpit space by about a foot. Basically, I am looking at structurally fabricating a bracket type design onto the back of the boat. This would basically turn the boat into a 25' boat. 2 features I want to put in are an insulated fish box, and an above floor live well. Maybe design an infloor fishbox where the current livewell is.
Really, what the purpose of this post is to see what anyone else has seen out there. I might check over on classic mako and see if anyone has seen anything like I described.

[strick]

I had some pics of that boat that deperado was trying to sell. The boat was half torn apart. You could see the new stringer system. The stringers ran back into the bracket. The Seamarks have stringers in them already so the only thing separating the boat stringers and the bracket stringers is the thickness of the transom.
So whats all the hype about integral brackets? The claim is that boats with a integral bracket will handle better... are faster to responde when you hit the throttle.

I guess I'd have to see it to believe it.

If you think about it the integral bracket boat should respond to the throttle about the same as when the motor was mounted to the transom before they made the integral bracket. The only difference being that the boat now handles like a boat 30 inches longer.
I happen to think that the Seamark or any other well built bracket when bolted and glued with 5200 to the back of a structurally sound boat functions as one unit with the boat.
I think that these guys who claim that their boat handles sooooo much better with the integral bracket are actually lost in that tranfixed state of euphoria you get when you feel how much better the boat handles now that it it 30 inches longer. I just dont see how integral strigers can make it handle any better at all... that is unless someone can convince me otherwise. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Strick

[FELLOW-SHIP]

Adding to the back of a boat is more complicated they most guys with little experience would like to tackle with out purchasing a add on bracket to simplify this process. But if you take a 25’ boat and make a integrated bracketed boat out of it by REDUCING the inside area to 23’ that would be far easier project kind of like how SeaCraft made their 25 footer. The inside is 23 but the hull is 25 foot long. That way the stringers and the hull are already their you are just putting a wall in front of the transom to keep the water out and have your live well above the deck. Think like Contender boat Co. So if you are working with a 23 SeaCraft you would really have a 21’ boat inside detentions. I know, no one wants to make their boat smaller so buy bigger and integrate or except your limitations.
Just another opinion.
FellowShip [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Scott]

but they think an awful lot of that bracket ($$$). It is still an option though.

John ...I understand your thinking however I would guess to design and fabricate an integral bracket would be a lot more $$$$$ ... Not to mention you need to find someone capable of that work that you can trust to engineer such a design. At least with the potter bracket you can get an idea of how your boat will perform by some of the guys that have already put one on the boat. Yours will be one of a kind and you will not know how it performs or handles till the day its back in the water. Unless cost is not a factor I cant see that being the more economical way to go.

I happen to think that the Seamark or any other well built bracket when bolted and glued with 5200 to the back of a structurally sound boat functions as one unit with the boat.

I agree … something like a Gil Bracket is another story.

That bracket bolted along the platform and throughout the float chamber , then sealed with calking becomes part of the hull. I would guess (and I have only seen pictures of one mounted to a boat ….. and Chris’s bracket which isn’t on the boat ) that by adding that particular bracket you have about 75-80% ?? of what an extended hull would give you below the water line. Chris and I have even talked about tabbing his bracket to the hull with fiberglass.

Are there other reasons why you would rather the integral bracket over an add on?? Have you talked to any glass guys about what you want to do …cost ??

[JohnB]

Scott,
You have a PM

[Captn C]

I think I'm confused??????

What would the difference be between an add on bracket (made from wood/composite and fiberglass)and a integrated bracket(made from wood/composite and fiberglass)?

In my mind those to terms are basicly the same.....I can see where it could be engineered so the bracket became part of the boat/transom by extending the stringers back into the "bracket", but wouldn't that be more of hull extention and not really a bracket.

The way I used the terms;

Bracket=bolt-on
Integrated=bonded in place (which is what I was referring to doing).