[krisscross]

I have a question regarding sugar scoop transom safety in big following seas. It would seem like such a transom might be a liability if a big wave was to crash on it. Same with a transom mounted swim platform, that could possibly be ripped out from it's mounting by a crashing wave.
Any thoughts or experiences?

 

[denverd0n]

My thoughts are that the sugar scoop adds a bit of buoyancy back there, as well as a scoop to catch a following sea. If the scoop isn't too big, these things probably cancel each other out.

The typical added-on swim platform, on the other hand, does not add buoyancy. And, as you mentioned, depending on its mounting, it might be subject to tearing out by a serious wave. That is why, were I to add a swim platform to the back of my boat, I would want one that could fold up against the transom for passages.

 

[krisscross]

My thoughts are that the sugar scoop adds a bit of buoyancy back there, as well as a scoop to catch a following sea. If the scoop isn't too big, these things probably cancel each other out.

I did not think about the benefits of added buoyancy. Good point, thank you. And yes, the size of the scoop would likely have a major effect when catching wave's impact. I see that some of the newer boat designs have smaller scoops. I think that sugar scoops are a great feature of convenience but as usual, there is a trade off here.

 

[Faster]

I think "Add on" sugar scoops are tricky... and must be properly engineered and fabricated/installed. Also somewhat difficult to make them 'look' right if on a boat not intended for them in the first place.

We've done some considerable mileage in an open transom boat in the Caribbean, often surfing in decent waves (top of St Vincent, Bequia Channel) and never took a wave 'up the bum' so to speak.. and the positive here is that even if it did, it would drain as quickly..

I do think there's a difference if you're talking about todays' near standard open transoms vs an add-on stern platform.. A number of manufacturers are taking the 'fold up' path nowadays.

 

[outbound]

Would add many boats now have the sugar scoop with open transom. When done with the typical absence of a bridge deck in front of the companionway unless the duck boards start high up and there is at least 6-8" of solid glass below them the risk of down flooding is high.
Admittedly its a PIA to have to pick up your feet to step into the companionway but this threshold keeps water out. Not only from a pooping but even the more common side boarding sea.
Its common to sail with the companionway open on nice days. Its common to open it for change of watch, crew going up or down even on lousy days. I've seen several good sized new boats where the combination of no threshold and a direct path for green boarding water makes them all too vulnerable to downflooding.
Although I have a threshold when offshore I place two duck boards that slide into slots closing off the aft section of the cockpit. They stop 6" above the cockpit sole so drainage is unaffected but cut down significantly on amount and force of any aft boarding sea.
Finally it is clearly preferable the sugar scoop be part of the original female mold not glassed in as an afterthought as it will be stronger.

 

[eherlihy]

I believe that Faster, as usual, is spot on.

While the open and walk-through transom designs of modern era boats can catch a wave, they will also drain faster too.

My boat ('87 O'day 35) has a factory swim platform. The platform is molded into the hull, and extends the transom aft about a foot from that of the same boat without the platform (O'day 34). However, the coaming on the transom is not a walk-through, but rather a step over with a high bridge deck fore and aft. Both designs have dual 1.5" drains at the far aft sole of the cockpit (no idea how long the swimming pool would last if I were pooped.. Guess is about 5 min.). Because of the high transom, I believe that my boat is as protected from being pooped as it can be.

 

[krisscross]

A couple of boats I have been looking at:

 

[krisscross]

First is a Cal28 stretched to 31 with an added sugar scoop. The second one is a factory original transom on a Heritage 36.
At this point it is all just window shopping as I'm at least 2 years away from a purchase.

 

[capta]

How about we take it one step further and build a 45+ foot boat that shouldn't go out beyond the 3 mile limit. And the Great Lakes? Forget it!
How's this for a stern that says, "WELCOME!" to the ocean. And I shouldn't think you'd want to put a child on either one of those helm seats.
This really is THE boat to caption, "What were they thinking?"
By the way, the name of the boat; Senseless, I kid you not!

 

[krisscross]

That's what happens when you have more money then sea-sense.

 

[Faster]

How about we take it one step further and build a 45+ foot boat that shouldn't go out beyond the 3 mile limit. And the Great Lakes? Forget it!
How's this for a stern that says, "WELCOME!" to the ocean. And I shouldn't think you'd want to put a child on either one of those helm seats.
This really is THE boat to caption, "What were they thinking?"
By the way, the name of the boat; Senseless, I kid you not!

Kind of a clever/ironic name for a Beneteau Sense 50

 

[JonEisberg]

Kind of a clever/ironic name for a Beneteau Sense 50

Damn, those SenseBoats sure lose their SexAppeal in a jiffy, as soon as you start tacking on a stern arch, cockpit enclosures, dinghy davits, and so on, no?

Hard to decide which looks worse, the bolted-on aluminum jungle gym in capta's pics, or the matching basket handle from the factory

 

[RichH]

Just a thought .... Imagine scooping up a large boarding stern wave, and that wave continuing on to then impact on those large 'stern windows' on the deck house and bridge-deck-less companionway. I really wouldn't matter how fast that cockpit would drain, as such a wave if it breached all that 'vulnerability' a lot of that wave would now probably be 'on the inside'.

I would like to hear Bob Perry's opinion on this 'design'.

 

[Stumble]

Ya it's almost like the designers at Beneteau didn't think about designing in a transom board to block off the cockpit from a following sea.... Except of course they did, and it's built into every boat, and takes seconds to deploy...

 

[RichH]

Make the assumption that with the 'shield' in place that the volume of the cockpit is 3' X 12' X 12' X 62.4 lb./cu. ft. of water .... thats ~27,000 pounds of load for that cockpit. Betcha with the moment force that 27K load develops vs. reserve buoyancy .... that the stern goes 'squat' .... guesstimate of an est. about 3+ ft. 'deeper' (imagine the timing period of that 'next' stern wave) into the water until the water takes the time (lag) to 'drain' around that shield. ;-)

 

[pdqaltair]

There is a reason that many (all of the big ones) of the sugar scoops on multihulls are open to the inside. I have them, yes waves do wash up... and right over. It is the cosmetic sides that cause the trouble, not the floor itself.

 

[hellosailor]

Appendages outside the hull, like swimming platforms, should be considered expendable at sea. Consider the forces if a 10-20' wave breaks and drops a nice "block" of green water, around 64# per cubic foot, on them from that height. No matter how you change the estimates, it is still going to mean "Can six sumos jump on it t once?"

And while sugar scoops make for easy cockpit drainage and fast MOB recovery, it was pointed out back in the 80's that a sugar scoop has the most stable and inherent buoyancy when the hull is, uh, INVERTED.

So...I don't Larry Pardey would choose to build one.

 

[capta]

Ya it's almost like the designers at Beneteau didn't think about designing in a transom board to block off the cockpit from a following sea.... Except of course they did, and it's built into every boat, and takes seconds to deploy...

I can only assume you are being facetious? What use would that board be in 25+ foot breaking seas and gale force winds.
Hey, I've got a great idea. How about Bene supplies a drogue with these boats to insure the death of all aboard? Or if that is too expensive, I'm sure a sea anchor would achieve the same results, just backwards.
Seriously though, are these boats being marketed as bay and harbor day sailors? That's certainly the extent of their safe operations, one would think.

 

[smackdaddy]

My eyes are rolling.

 

[eherlihy]

Here is the best picture that I could find of the O'day 35 swim platform;

(Not my boat)

Prices for these in Yachtworld range from $25K to $35K