# Tunnel Hulls..what's the deal?



## skinny_water

The gain is shallow running ability. The loss is speed and draft. They are able to get a little bit of the speed back by "venting" the tunnel. If you have to run sub 8-10" all day the tunnel makes sense. If you have to pole sub 8" the flat bottoms win out. That pretty much sums it up, lol. Good luck cause this post is gunna get CrAzY!


----------



## Woodie

After owning a tunnel, and planning on getting another one, I can't tell you why.

I believe at rest the nontunnel is skinnier, just a little depending on weight and the presence of sponsoons.

I like the fact that with a tunnel your foot is almost all the way out of danger. What with logs and stumps, rocks, bars, and old traps, ya can't be too carefull!


----------



## Brett

Depends on the area to be used. Miles of shallow sand and mud it's ideal.
Over grass flats, the tip wash off the prop still rips the grass loose.
Now a very big no-no here in Florida!
Regs don't care what type of hull, prop in the water chewing grass will get you in trouble.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/25/sp-under-protection/

http://www.ecoworld.com/water-supply/motors-banned-everglade.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/fl-florida-bay-20091128,0,4894083.story

Also doesn't do any good to have a tunnel hull in areas of no wake or manatee zones.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy building mine...


----------



## TomFL

> To me it seems like the benefits of the tunnel hull are obvious. As I look around at microskiffs and flats boats, I noticed that most DO NOT have the tunnel (gheenoe, native, lagoon, mitzi, mosquito)
> 
> What's the deal? Are the tunnels more expensive to build? Is there a performance loss somewhere? What am I missing?


I think you've opened a can of worms here, but I second what skinny_water has posted already. The single biggest attraction is the shallow-water running capability; the ability to go where no other boat can. Spots along your route that would leave another boat high and dry a tunnel can go right over without a problem. 

Once at the spot and fishing a non-tunnel will generally have a shallower draft as the tunnel is lacking a full hull bottom (and flotation). Heck there's a void where the tunnel is!

That's the trade-off in a nutshell. 

A tunnel hull will lose speed for a couple of reasons; first and foremost the water getting sucked up into the tunnel and forced back to the prop is "dirty" meaning it's not smooth, undisturbed water. The prop simply doesn't have a good enough "bite" on the water to generate efficient forward propulsion. 

Also, not sure if it's a trait of a tunnel hull in general, but my pathfinder will stay on plane at speeds *under* 14mph. I've never had a flats boat capable of doing that. 

-T


----------



## anytide

YA -what they said sums it up ,I prefer a tunnel for prop safety and  it reduces prop-scarring @ any given depth which is a big NO-NO anymore,,problems come into play when you push for even shallower depth -which tunnels will deliver..so use a tunnel to benefit the envirionment -not chew it-up :-?!!
                            -anytide


----------



## jared_simonetti

Tunnel hull is the Sh$t owned a 17t pathfinder for awhile and tunnel hull will be my next boat for sure.


----------



## Lowroad

I have a 15' Pathfinder with a tunnel, great shallow running boat. Mitzi make a shallow tunnel that eliminates some of the eliminate some of the squatting.


----------



## Roninrus1

Besides the loss of 3-5 mph speed the low end maneuverability also suffers slightly. They don't back well at all and ride rougher than a vee in choppy water.
Some may disagree but I have a 17T pathfinder for the marsh and a 22' Skeeter tunnel for the shallow flats on the upper Texas coast. Basing my opinion on over 17 years of running tunnels.


----------



## devrep

it's an 8 year old post but ok. I have a tunnel waterman. Does 35 mph and still can get into some ridiculously shallow water at rest. Chris Morejohn said his tunnel design cost almost no flotation. And it is vented.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

devrep said:


> it's an 8 year old post but ok. I have a tunnel waterman. Does 35 mph and still can get into some ridiculously shallow water at rest. Chris Morejohn said his tunnel design cost almost no flotation. And it is vented.


I did the math, even the big tunnel in my Maverick only costs about 1/4" of draft and I can run 34-35 with me and a big buddy loaded down and it has an extreme holeshot prop and Yamaha 70. I'm glad you dug this one up.


----------



## devrep

actually the guy above me dug it up, I just chimed in.


----------



## Vertigo

Once on plane, a tunnel will let you run a few inches shallower. That is the only benefit. A tunnel hull is more expensive to build and buy, less fuel efficient, slower, and drafts more than a conventional hull. To take full advantage of a tunnel, you'll need an expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate. A tunnel hull will have a weaker hole shot and will not get out of the hole any shallower. If you run in an area of shallows with random rocks or stumps just under the surface, running on plane with or without a tunnel can be risky. Better to know the territory than to have a tunnel. If you run in an area of shallows with sand and mud bottoms and few obstructions, a tunnel may let you get places a conventional hull won't....of course, if you stop running on plane, you'll have a problem getting home. I've owned a few dozen tunnel hull skiffs, I've built a few, and I still own a tunnel hull. Obviously I'm not totally against them, but they are severely limited in their utility and in many cases more of a fashion statement than a requirement for a shallow running skiff.


----------



## Backcountry 16

I had a tailfisher and as I like the shallow running ability I hated the ride and the way it skipped in turns. I am in the process of having a shadowcast 16 built and was going to delete the tunnel but it's another thousand dollars so I decided to leave it.


----------



## TidewateR

i'm such a noob


----------



## coconutgroves

I used to think the a tunnel drafts more, but Chris Morejohn even posted on there that they really don't. I can't argue with that - and I've never measured or did the math myself, I just regurgitated what I had been told.

Here in TX they are helpful for sure, but can get you into some pretty bad situations if not handled correctly. I do not have one on my current boat, but had one on my previous boat.


----------



## EdK13

All I know is after water dumped yesterday where Mac and I were that tunnel mav did its thing. Bottom line, there was no way I would want Mac to pole for miles in 20mph + to find 10 inch water to spin up a conventional skiff. In Texas its an excellent tool especially in post frontal conditions when there is an abundance of < 1' of water.


----------



## Roninrus1

Vertigo pretty much nailed it! My Skeeter draws 14" and I can run in less than 12". BUT, like Vertigo said, don't stop because you are sitting on bottom. In Pringle lake I had a guy make a hard left in front of me, forcing me to shutdown or hit him. Took about a hour to push it off the bar to water deep enough to float. Then about 20 minutes at idle to hit water deep enough to get up on plane.


----------



## Net 30

coconutgroves said:


> I used to think the a tunnel drafts more, but Chris Morejohn even posted on there that they really don't. I can't argue with that - and I've never measured or did the math myself, I just regurgitated what I had been told.
> 
> Here in TX they are helpful for sure, but can get you into some pretty bad situations if not handled correctly. I do not have one on my current boat, but had one on my previous boat.


This is a quote from the man himself...Chris Morejohn.

I questioned him about my 2001 17.8 Whipray tunnel: *"It does work well, it only loses about 18 lbs of displacement so there is no loss in draft".*

Mic Drop - End of Discussion........


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Net 30 said:


> This is a quote from the man himself...Chris Morejohn.
> 
> I questioned him about my 2001 17.8 Whipray tunnel: *"It does work well, it only loses about 18 lbs of displacement so there is no loss in draft".*
> 
> Mic Drop - End of Discussion........


I wouldn't say zero loss of draft but 18# of displacement spread over the wetted area of any skiff is marginal. Hell, my tackle bag weighs more than 18#.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

EdK13 said:


> All I know is after water dumped yesterday where Mac and I were that tunnel mav did its thing. Bottom line, there was no way I would want Mac to pole for miles in 20mph + to find 10 inch water to spin up a conventional skiff. In Texas its an excellent tool especially in post frontal conditions when there is an abundance of < 1' of water.


Without a tunnel we would not have run out of where we were without trenching the bottom and slinging oyster shells off the prop.


----------



## firecat1981

I went through this exercise years ago, did all the math, and decided the tunnel wasn't worth the hassle on my new build. What cracks me up is so many guys put emphasis on the tunnel, but never address the things needed to maximize it (heavy cupped prop, jackplate, nose cone/low water intake, cav plate...). You can still use all those things without a tunnel and run just a few inches deeper because at the end of the day a prop still needs water.
As far as "







Mic drop - End of discussion........" goes the math is easy to figure out. A cubic ft of water is a little over 62lbs, so a sq ft displaces about 5.2lbs per inch. So a really small tunnel, say 24"L x 12"W x 2" deep would lead you to have a loss of 20.8lbs of displacement assuming the boat drafts more then 2", very likely, lol. This would be a fairly small tunnel so I'm not sure where the figure of 18lbs came from being it would be even smaller.


----------



## EdK13

The utility of a tunnel hinges on the fishery. After moving to TX I learned the true meaning of skinny. And that was after doing Florida water for 17 years. Glades, Chuck, Lagoon, Charlotte Harbor, etc.. Skinny runs in Florida are usually short. It still shocks me some days looking at mile after mile of less than a foot of water in South Texas. And I will be happy to run my compression Cat in Texas water next to a conventional skiff and see who overheats first. It so far as Mac's tackle bag is concerned, it is 35 lbs. Give or take...


----------



## firecat1981

No doubt different setups are required in different locations. Texas has challenges most of us don't have to deal with. I'm operating in Florida and really see no need for it here around the west coast cause anytime you are running that skinny you are more then likely destroying grass.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

firecat1981 said:


> No doubt different setups are required in different locations. Texas has challenges most of us don't have to deal with. I'm operating in Florida and really see no need for it here around the west coast cause anytime you are running that skinny you are more then likely destroying grass.


The grass in the back lakes here grows really long in spring and summer then in fall it dies and ducks eat it and it decomposes. As long as my propwash is clean I'm confident I'm just giving that grass a haircut and not destroying the roots. I still pole to deeper holes or muddy bottom to jump on plane if possible.


----------



## Matts

Vertigo said:


> Once on plane, a tunnel will let you run a few inches shallower. That is the only benefit. A tunnel hull is more expensive to build and buy, less fuel efficient, slower, and drafts more than a conventional hull. To take full advantage of a tunnel, you'll need an expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate. A tunnel hull will have a weaker hole shot and will not get out of the hole any shallower. If you run in an area of shallows with random rocks or stumps just under the surface, running on plane with or without a tunnel can be risky. Better to know the territory than to have a tunnel. If you run in an area of shallows with sand and mud bottoms and few obstructions, a tunnel may let you get places a conventional hull won't....of course, if you stop running on plane, you'll have a problem getting home. I've owned a few dozen tunnel hull skiffs, I've built a few, and I still own a tunnel hull. Obviously I'm not totally against them, but they are severely limited in their utility and in many cases more of a fashion statement than a requirement for a shallow running skiff.


This is clearly FL talk. Here in S Texas, we basically need an airboat that poles well. I've fished both TX and FL and they are vastly different. Without an "expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate" I'd be hosed most of the time. I've fished it both ways and unless you want to pole for miles or walk, you better be set up correctly.


----------



## EdK13

Matts said:


> This is clearly FL talk. Here in S Texas, we basically need an airboat that poles well I've fished both. Without an "expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate" I'd be hosed most of the time. I've fished it both ways and unless you want to pole for miles or walk, you better be set up correctly.


Yep- I know a couple round skegers that have learned - the hard way.


----------



## sjrobin

12 lbs, 18 lbs, or 30 lbs of displacement .... 1 lb more is not good.


----------



## firecat1981

Yeeeep, gonna start that ol diet one of these days, dem pounds just keep addin up.


----------



## Vertigo

Lots of tunnels displace way more than 18# of water. More like 50 to 100# would be closer to average. Even then 100# doesn't increase draft that much if the boat is floating level. OTOH, if a 200# person is standing on a the poling platform and the boat is floating stern down over the tunnel, the increase in draft at the stern can be significant. 

Yep, I'm in Florida, but I've lived and fished in Texas. To quote myself from my comments above: " If you run in an area of shallows with sand and mud bottoms and few obstructions, a tunnel may let you get places a conventional hull won't....of course, if you stop running on plane, you'll have a problem getting home." This is a description of Texas conditions. There are prop scars all over Texas shallow coastal bays.


----------



## devrep

there are tunnel designs and sizes from a to z. some affect draft and ride drastically, others don't. If you fish shallow hard bottom with lots of rocks it can only be good to have the prop up at the hull bottom on plane or not. everyone has an opinion. my opinion might change if I was in your fishing area and so might yours in mine.


----------



## KeepingItSimple

I live in Charleston SC. I owned a 17T at one point. Thought it would be helpful but I will admit that it got me into as many jams as it got me out of (the stop-and-stuck mentioned above; staying in a draining flat a little too long thinking the boat will save me). There are a few places with super long mud flats but they are the minority. I will also second that he tunnel does make for unusual close quarters maneuvering. I ultimately went to a shallow V with a jp. The jp will raise me high enough to keep the prop out of danger when slow putting. Wouldn't do the tunnel again unless I lived in Texas or Louisiana. 
Alex V


----------



## commtrd

Vertigo said:


> Once on plane, a tunnel will let you run a few inches shallower. That is the only benefit. A tunnel hull is more expensive to build and buy, less fuel efficient, slower, and drafts more than a conventional hull. To take full advantage of a tunnel, you'll need an expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate. A tunnel hull will have a weaker hole shot and will not get out of the hole any shallower. If you run in an area of shallows with random rocks or stumps just under the surface, running on plane with or without a tunnel can be risky. Better to know the territory than to have a tunnel. If you run in an area of shallows with sand and mud bottoms and few obstructions, a tunnel may let you get places a conventional hull won't....of course, if you stop running on plane, you'll have a problem getting home. I've owned a few dozen tunnel hull skiffs, I've built a few, and I still own a tunnel hull. Obviously I'm not totally against them, but they are severely limited in their utility and in many cases more of a fashion statement than a requirement for a shallow running skiff.


It is that very first sentence that explains why. And it is totally geologically determined as to need for a tunnel or not. Absent living in a place where there are hundreds of square miles of super shallow flats, there would be no need for a tunnel. Other than that all the listed points are true and the only valid reason for having a tunnel is exactly point number one. But it is a pretty big deal if really needed.


----------



## commtrd

Matts said:


> This is clearly FL talk. Here in S Texas, we basically need an airboat that poles well. I've fished both TX and FL and they are vastly different. Without an "expensive and heavy hydraulic jack plate" I'd be hosed most of the time. I've fished it both ways and unless you want to pole for miles or walk, you better be set up correctly.


Really cannot state it any plainer than this.


----------



## Backcountry 16

Here's the synopsis if you live in Texas tunnel yes. Florida not needed but still has it's place . Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi I have no fn idea. Mic drop.


----------



## Matts

commtrd said:


> Really cannot state it any plainer than this.


Does that earn me a free (or paid) ride in the new HB


----------



## zthomas

Vertigo said:


> A tunnel hull will have a weaker hole shot and will not get out of the hole any shallower.


I have to disagree with the latter. Maybe I just haven't run the right non-tunnel boats, but my 17T pops up way shallower than anything else I've been in -- especially anything without a jackplate.


----------



## SomaliPirate

I'll chime in. The 17T has probably the most extreme tunnel I've ever seen. With two anglers and gear, I can pole in around 7-8" if someone is on the bow. I feel that the tunnel has to cost me some resting draft simply because the damn thing is huge. It looks like you could stuff a beer keg in that tunnel with room to spare. The tunnel is slow; with a Yammy 60 I can hit 32mph with two anglers and gear if conditions are perfect and the stars align(four blade prop). Normally I cruise around 20-23mph. Handling and ride, particularly with the factory 3 blade prop is interesting. The stern slides and skips in any kind of turn and makes for a white knuckle ride. As previously stated, having the right prop makes all the difference. Switching to a Powertech 4 blade brought the sliding under control, provided for a pretty intense hole shot, and allows me to keep her on plane at pretty slow speeds. The hull itself is so slow that I didn't lose any top end from the switch either. 
The beauty of this hull is that you can run stupid skinny. I once (inadvertently) ran across a sand bar that I knew to be ankle deep at that tide. You can get yourself into areas reserved for airboats and mud motors. That's not to say I can run wherever I want; doing that over grass leaves scars and isn't cool. Try that around citrus county and you can lose your lower unit if you don't know where you're going. The tunnel has it's purpose and it certainly isn't for everyone. For general use I think most people would be better served without one. Hell, I'd probably be better served with a different hull, but I'm just really partial to mine.


----------



## Sublime

Ran a non tunnel BT for 9 years and decided to go tunnel on the present skiff. My tunnel is less than 4" tall at the center thus it stays in contact with the water at all times so I doubt if I am losing much draft.

I am not the daredevil type so I don't go running places that I don't have a clue about. I am a creature of habit and usually run the same routes to the same spots. In some of those routes were stretches too shallow to run in the old boat and a muddy mess to try to pole through so I got a tunnel to make life a little easier.


----------



## Vertigo

zthomas said:


> I have to disagree with the latter. Maybe I just haven't run the right non-tunnel boats, but my 17T pops up way shallower than anything else I've been in -- especially anything without a jackplate.


I've owned a 17T. It gets up OK, but does squat quite a bit and would probably do better if it were a flat bottom without a tunnel. 

The fact is that a tunnel has absolutely no effect when at a standstill. To get moving the prop has to be at a minimum depth and that depth is the same, tunnel or no tunnel. Because a tunnel hull has less displacement in the stern, it will tend to squat more than the same hull without a tunnel, thus a tunnel hull is slower and may draft more out of the hole. Once in motion the tunnel will begin to take effect, and if a jack plate is mounted, then the motor/prop can be raised. If your boat does not have an adjustable jack plate, then it's really impossible to take full (or any) advantage of a tunnel.


----------



## zthomas

I'm with you on the added tendency to squat. But if by "do better ... without a tunnel" you mean pop onto plane in shallower water, I can't agree with that.

True, the tunnel has no effect at a standstill. And true the minimum prop depth is the same, tunnel or no tunnel. But as soon as you hit the throttle, you're no longer at a standstill, and the effect of the tunnel increases quickly as the boat accelerates.

Now, I can see that if you took the same hull minus the tunnel, added a hydraulic plate, and put it in the hands of somebody skilled at using a jackplate, it would get up as shallow.

But here's my reasoning. If you took my same boat and altered nothing — engine height, prop etc. — except for filling in the tunnel, it would just blow out, probably before ever planing. The prop shaft would simply be too high to do much more than idle if the bottom were flat.

So with no jackplate, if the bottom were flat, you'd realistically have to lower the engine a good six inches to have a functional boat. And I don't think you can argue that lowering the engine six inches wouldn't increase the depth needed to launch.

Put another way, if the bottom were flat and you had a jackplate mounted, you'd be able to start with the prop raised to the same height as mine, but you'd also have to lower it as you came onto plane to keep from blowing out — or at least losing water pressure. I'm aware that with super-cupped props, low-water nosecones and other specialized modifications, that might not be true, but I'm assuming off the shelf props and unmodified lower units.

On a related note, I'd also say it's demonstrably not true that a tunnel offers no advantages without a jackplate.


----------



## shallowfish1

TomFL said:


> The single biggest attraction is the shallow-water running capability; the ability to go where no other boat can. Spots along your route that would leave another boat high and dry a tunnel can go right over without a problem.


This. I don't like they way they tend to squat or bounce in choppy water, but tunnels blow me away in terms of shallow-water running ability. A few years back I fished a blown-out winter low far below Chokoloskee. The weather reports called for winds out of the west but they were wrong, and the tidewater I expected to return to the backcountry that PM did not. My ass ate a hole in my seat the entire way back to the dock. At one point I was running across a bay where mud bars I'd never seen exposed were showing, and my outboard was clipping bottom every few seconds. As I'm clenching the wheel with white knuckles this guide comes sailing by me in a Maverick tunnel skiff steering with his feet and drinking a beer. It was downright humbling. I prefer my non-tunnel boat, but there's no denying that properly dialed-in tunnels laugh at skinny water other boats dread.


----------



## devrep

oh and with my Powertech SWC3 it jumps up on plane in a heartbeat. I need to get a go pro


----------



## zthomas

I stuck a Permatrim plate on mine recently, and it really reduced the squat/bow-rise on takeoff.


----------



## SomaliPirate

shallowfish1 said:


> This. I don't like they way they tend to squat or bounce in choppy water, but tunnels blow me away in terms of shallow-water running ability. A few years back I fished a blown-out winter low far below Chokoloskee. The weather reports called for winds out of the west but they were wrong, and the tidewater I expected to return to the backcountry that PM did not. My ass ate a hole in my seat the entire way back to the dock. At one point I was running across a bay where mud bars I'd never seen exposed were showing, and my outboard was clipping bottom every few seconds. As I'm clenching the wheel with white knuckles this guide comes sailing by me in a Maverick tunnel skiff steering with his feet and drinking a beer. It was downright humbling. I prefer my non-tunnel boat, but there's no denying that properly dialed-in tunnels laugh at skinny water other boats dread.


Most of the joy in owning a tunnel is scaring the life out of guests with where you can run.


----------



## shallowfish1

I bet. The only boats I've seen run as shallow as dialed-in tunnel skiffs are the old pre-ban mullet boats with the outboard mounted in a well located near the bow deck. Some of them featured a tunnel of sorts to minimize the wash in the well, as I recall. A buddy of mine had an old commercial guy build him a wood-ribbed Glades skiff modeled after those mullet boats and it would run through damn near anything...and rattle your teeth in a chop.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Here's one from yesterday running solo and the tide dropped more than I expected and I was not paying attention. I could have kept going but I was pretty sure there was an oyster bar on the edge and did not want to tear my hull up. I'm glad I packed light, half the tunnel was showing and I pushed the Maverick about 50 feet to deep water no problem. I had to mark the spot...


----------



## Sublime

No fish in Shoalwater


----------



## EvanHammer

TidewateR said:


> i'm such a noob


*boob


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Sublime said:


> No fish in Shoalwater


Nice try! I have to watch you closely from now on and if you fish with me I will have to confiscate all electronic devices, blindfold you and only take you to places you can't see landmarks from. Haha


----------



## Sublime

I'm old. Been all up and down the coast at one point or another, but only know East Matty and Freeport areas like really good. And I have never been south of 9 mile.


----------



## EdK13

Sublime said:


> No fish in Shoalwater


None. Totally fished out  and Macs favorite fishing apparel company, Salt Life, is having a big sale - do not tell him.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

EdK13 said:


> None. Totally fished out  and Macs favorite fishing apparel company, Salt Life, is having a big sale - do not tell him.


You couldn't pay me to put that bank fishing memorabilia on anything I own. No spider weights, popping corks, orange beads or frozen squid on my boat.


----------



## jimsmicro

Man, if only I had bought a boat without a tunnel so I could have had a half inch less draft at rest.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

jimsmicro said:


> Man, if only I had bought a boat without a tunnel so I could have had a half inch less draft at rest.
> 
> View attachment 10456


I love a simple aluminum boat. Nice motor too!


----------



## jimsmicro

Thanks. I make long runs through a river that's loaded with logs and rocks, and then have to cross flats with rocks and mud, but once I get into the creeks I have water at almost any tide. For me the ability to run as shallow as possible is literally the difference between catching fish and sitting out in the channel waiting for water. Other than airboats and a few jet rigs it's reaaaal quiet back in those creeks...


----------



## devrep

here's a good view of mine when I was replacing the original Bob's plate (which is now on my son's boat). The vent is up under the horizontal plate in the front of the tunnel and it vents out thru the row of holes in the black starboard transom plate.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

devrep said:


> here's a good view of mine when I was replacing the original Bob's plate (which is now on my son's boat). The vent is up under the horizontal plate in the front of the tunnel and it vents out thru the row of holes in the black starboard transom plate.


Is the plate in the front of the tunnel part of the hull or a screwed on piece?


----------



## devrep

If you are talking about the horizontal plate below the vent it is a fiberglass plate glassed in at the time of const by hells bay. I think it is to keep water from being forced thru the vent when running.


----------



## devrep

devrep said:


> here's a good view of mine when I was replacing the original Bob's plate (which is now on my son's boat). The vent is up under the horizontal plate in the front of the tunnel and it vents out thru the row of holes in the black starboard transom plate.


 I think you can see where this tunnel would not cause much flotation loss.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

devrep said:


> If you are talking about the horizontal plate below the vent it is a fiberglass plate glassed in at the time of const by hells bay. I think it is to keep water from being forced thru the vent when running.


Yessir, I figured it was glassed in. I have seen some with a valve at the helm to open the vent on hole shot and shut it while running. I believe East Cape has a vent design like that. The plate just makes an air pocket so the tunnel actually vents instead of blowing water out the tube. Some have the tube exit out the transom. Cool!


----------



## Sublime

I moved my compression plate forward to where it should have been all along. I haven't had a chance to run it yet, but I think it will run even better. My jack plate is about 75% raised here and it would run all day like that before.










PS, I saw Harry's new EvergladeZ last Friday. I didn't have a chance to look very long, but man I can tell you he has stepped up his game. The skiff I saw had a tunnel, 50 horse tiller Tohatsu mounted on an Atlas Micro Jacker.


----------



## Jason

If you really want to utilize the full capabilities of a tunnel throw some heavy cup in the prop


----------



## Sublime

Jason said:


> If you really want to utilize the full capabilities of a tunnel throw some heavy cup in the prop


Oh trust me, it has mucho cup.


----------



## devrep

Those Tran plates look the shiznitz. Would love to try one. Has anyone directly compared a Tran to a Shaw Wing?


----------



## Sublime

devrep said:


> Those Tran plates look the shiznitz. Would love to try one. Has anyone directly compared a Tran to a Shaw Wing?


Harry had a Shaw Wing on the 50 Tohatsu, but I haven't asked him how he likes it.

One "issue" I had with the Tran plate is this. It will come as a "blank" and you will have to cut your own "slot" down the middle so that you can slide it onto to the lower unit from the rear. I made a template out of cardboard and fitted that up first and then transferred that pattern to the plate and cut it. No big deal. However, the lower unit is, of course, thicker in the middle than it is on the leading edge and the slot you cut in the plate has to be wide enough to go over the widest point of the lower unit. So as you slide the plate to the front now you will have a gap between the side of the lower unit and the plate. Nothing huge but still 1/4" to 5/16" I would say. I guess some people leave it like that, but I fashioned these little tabs out of polycarbonate to bridge that gap, so I could come in from underneath with caulk. They are fastened with 1/4" x 1" bolts with fender washers on either side.


----------



## Marshfly

All you guys that say a tunnel doesn't help in hole shot are hilarious. Try this without a tunnel.


----------



## Vertigo

Marshfly said:


> All you guys that say a tunnel doesn't help in hole shot are hilarious. Try this without a tunnel.


Having way more engine than needed and not being afraid to dredge up mud and grass with the prop is what gets this rig going. The height of the prop would be the same, tunnel or no tunnel. Having a jack plate that gets the prop out of the mud is what helps. It's actually embarrassing how much bottom this guy tore up. He must be a little oblivious to how much damage he was doing just to have posted this video. If he tried that move in my neighborhood, his prop would be sacrificed to the coral rock in a few seconds.


----------



## Capnredfish

I will reply to that. It's shallow enough the boat can not squat. Tunnel has no effect at rest. Simply high mounted motor and a complete asshole can do that. He made sure not to get any mud in boat removing boots. No regards for sea bed be it grass or what ever is there.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Sublime said:


> Harry had a Shaw Wing on the 50 Tohatsu, but I haven't asked him how he likes it.
> 
> One "issue" I had with the Tran plate is this. It will come as a "blank" and you will have to cut your own "slot" down the middle so that you can slide it onto to the lower unit from the rear. I made a template out of cardboard and fitted that up first and then transferred that pattern to the plate and cut it. No big deal. However, the lower unit is, of course, thicker in the middle than it is on the leading edge and the slot you cut in the plate has to be wide enough to go over the widest point of the lower unit. So as you slide the plate to the front now you will have a gap between the side of the lower unit and the plate. Nothing huge but still 1/4" to 5/16" I would say. I guess some people leave it like that, but I fashioned these little tabs out of polycarbonate to bridge that gap, so I could come in from underneath with caulk. They are fastened with 1/4" x 1" bolts with fender washers on either side.


They will cut the appropriate notch for your motor if you ask them, they have templates for all motors.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Vertigo said:


> Having way more engine than needed and not being afraid to dredge up mud and grass with the prop is what gets this rig going. The height of the prop would be the same, tunnel or no tunnel. Having a jack plate that gets the prop out of the mud is what helps. It's actually embarrassing how much bottom this guy tore up. He must be a little oblivious to how much damage he was doing just to have posted this video. If he tried that move in my neighborhood, his prop would be sacrificed to the coral rock in a few seconds.


Areas like that down here are all mud. I don't think you guys understand that mud flats like that fill back in and change with the tides. I don't tear up grass when I jump on plane unless I'm over a bunch of dead stuff. Wading across grass shuffling your feet is no better.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Capnredfish said:


> I will reply to that. It's shallow enough the boat can no squat. Tunnel has no effect at rest. Simply high mounted motor and a complete asshole can do that. He sure made sure not to get any mud in boat removing boots. No regards for sea bed be it grass or what ever is there.


SAVE THE MUD!


----------



## EdK13

Smackdaddy53 said:


> SAVE THE MUD!


HA- It is different here- Last trip out I am sure you remember noting that the healthier and quick growing shoal and widgeon grass was in prop scars and the fish were using them as highways and hideouts. Also- the four million ducks that show up each year eat most of the shoal and widgeon grass. Texas turtle grass in the bluer water areas seems pretty healthy here as shell barriers often guard those areas. It helps that there are often cut channels nearby. People just drift channel to channel. Most Wade. Are there exceptions- of course. But even now Texas is not nearly the boat zoo that Florida was 9 years ago. Not even close.


----------



## Vertigo

I fished in Texas for years and I understand the conditions there very well. Rationalize all you want, but tearing up the bottom will never be beneficial to the fishery. I've viewed the Texas shallows from the air and there are prop scars everywhere, some have existed for years. They do not fill in with the tides.


----------



## sjrobin

I loved traveling 18 mph in four inches of water(sand) last week in the Laguna in a New Water Ibis. Not really.
As we drift fished north in gusts to 30 I would ask should we get back on plane now? I pushed the 21" Ibis to small holes to spin back on plane. But it was fun wade fishing again. Your assessment on prop damage is correct Vertigo. I would have done much less damage in the non-tunnel Pro than the Ibis. And /or I could have poled to a small sand hole to get on plane. I don't mind a little work. Especially compared to pushing the Ibis.


----------



## Sublime

sjrobin said:


> I loved traveling 18 mph in four inches of water(sand) last week in the Laguna in a New Water Ibis. Not really.
> As we drift fished north in gusts to 30 I would ask should we get back on plane now? I pushed the 21" Ibis to small holes to spin back on plane. But it was fun wade fishing again.


I'd be a nervous wreck.


----------



## GullsGoneWild

Vertigo said:


> I fished in Texas for years and I understand the conditions there very well. Rationalize all you want, but tearing up the bottom will never be beneficial to the fishery. I've viewed the Texas shallows from the air and there are prop scars everywhere, some have existed for years. They do not fill in with the tides.


I think you guys are talking about different sections of the coast. Upper to mid coast is mostly mud bottoms and most of the time its like fishing in choco milk except for summers when it cleans up nice. Middle to lower coast is more clear with more sandy/grassy bottoms. I've flown over several upper coast marshes and you cant see the bottom from a plane. Sheet, you cant see bottom when poling in 12" of water most times. Granted not every marsh is the same but on the upper coast, yes the mud scars fill in rather quickly due to the amount of dirty/muddy water dumping into the bays from the rivers and passes. Rollover pass (upper coast) is a great example. The state is in the middle of a land grab now and are trying to close the pass bc they are spending about $1MIL a year to dredge the ICW in front of the pass. Edited to finish my dumb thought.........So if a 30ft deep ICW is silting in enough to where they need to dredge every year or every other year then that's a lot of sediment pouring into our bays and marshes. Anyone ever fish cocodrie? Ever see the aluminum boat with the bulldozer attachment on the front dredging the same canals? I see him almost every year without fail.


----------



## sjrobin

Where ever marine grass grows. Pretty much every where.


----------



## Sublime

I don't think it is a good idea unless you absolutely have to no matter where you are. Remember there used to be grasses in places where people say no big deal, there's no grass here anyway.

Heck in East Matagorda I see grasses come and go depending on weather cycles, so you may be spinning up where grass is trying to come back.


----------



## Tx_Whipray

devrep said:


> Those Tran plates look the shiznitz. Would love to try one. Has anyone directly compared a Tran to a Shaw Wing?


I haven't but I might. I've got a Shaw on my boat now. The holeshot is outstanding, but it's so long it acts like a big trim tab and forces the bow down. It was an issue with the old Yamaha, but with the shorter shaft Tohatsu I thought it would improve since it rides higher. I'm going to cut it down some and give it a try and if it's still a problem I'm going to buy a Tran. I figure since I've already got the Shaw, and it doesn't require holes to be drilled in the motor, I'd give it my best shot before buying another one.


----------



## devrep

when on plane mine is completely out of the water (which is the way it should be) so it shouldn't act like a trim tab.


----------



## el9surf

Marshfly said:


> All you guys that say a tunnel doesn't help in hole shot are hilarious. Try this without a tunnel.


Can't imagine doing that day in and day out is good for the motor. Sounded like he hit the rev limiter for a few seconds trying to get on plane. Also willing to bet that motor was peeing mud for a little bit.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

el9surf said:


> Can't imagine doing that day in and day out is good for the motor. Sounded like he hit the rev limiter for a few seconds trying to get on plane. Also willing to bet that motor was peeing mud for a little bit.


Don't be scared to run your rig, that's how people figure out what they can and can't do.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

sjrobin said:


> Where ever marine grass grows. Pretty much every where.


Not really


----------



## el9surf

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Don't be scared to run your rig, that's how people figure out what they can and can't do.


The problem is when you blow a power head or damage a lower figuring out you can't do something. Do low water pickups work in the mud?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

el9surf said:


> The problem is when you blow a power head or damage a lower figuring out you can't do something. Do low water pickups work in the mud?


I understand what you're getting at, everyone is different. I like to try things and tinker. Some people like to maximize performance, some like to keep it stock. It's all good. 
They don't like to pump mud but you can run in skinny water with a mud bottom.


----------



## devrep

Smack do you run a low water pick up? If so any good pics of it?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

devrep said:


> Smack do you run a low water pick up? If so any good pics of it?


I have a transom mount on my aluminum boat, about to get a Bob's Bigfoot nosecone on my Maverick.
The photo above is my aluminum tunnel with a transom mount pickup system with an in line raw water strainer to keep grass and debris out of the cooling system. It holds about 3oz of grass before it stops flowing but I only plugged it once. It's self priming too. There are a couple of crazies like me that actually used a raw water pump in the middle and it pumps water to the water pump instead of relying on the water pump to take the load. Mercs like mine have a huge impeller so it has no problem sucking water. It pisses like a mule even with the motor out of the water. The intake holes are plugged with aluminum hex plugs and black 5200. 250 hours on this setup, runs stupid skinny despite the 2 3/4" deep tunnel I custom fabricated to accept a jet lower unit. I like the prop better. Runs 3-4" sustained no problem. The prop is above the hull fully jacked and trimmed and that's how I run it 90% of the time.


----------



## Tx_Whipray

Does anyone in Texas install Bob's Bigfoot pickups? Having to ship your lower unit to Florida and back almost doubles the price of the job.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Tx_Whipray said:


> Does anyone in Texas install Bob's Bigfoot pickups? Having to ship your lower unit to Florida and back almost doubles the price of the job.


I'm doing mine, Bob's outsources theirs now and I don't trust shipping it. If you want to see mine when I'm done you are welcome to. My old welder buddy is a master so he's doing the welding and I'm doing the fitting, epoxy, aluminum filler and prep/paint.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

This is what it will look like when I'm done. I also have a prototype prop in the works that is going to blow you guy's minds. I can't disclose any information until I get the OK from the designer.


----------



## Jason

Smack show them what a real cupped prop looks like.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Jason said:


> Smack show them what a real cupped prop looks like.


A few of them have seen one and have one. I bet some are sick of my tunnel hull and holeshot prop babble...


----------



## Sublime

Now that is some Texas cup


----------



## Megalops

New meaning to "heavily cupped" prop! Lol


----------



## devrep

I've been thinking about the nosecone also. Do all of the guts have to come out of the lower unit to do the welding? I would think the heat would damage seals, etc.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

devrep said:


> I've been thinking about the nosecone also. Do all of the guts have to come out of the lower unit to do the welding? I would think the heat would damage seals, etc.


No, it just gets tacked (with MIG) on in 5 places 1/2" long. Mig welding does not get the aluminum as hot as TIG and the places you weld it are not close enough to the gearcase to mlI spoke with the tech at Bob's yesterday for about 30 minutes about the process. He's been there since they started.


----------



## SomaliPirate

I like my props like I like my women...heavily cupped.


----------



## Sublime

Smackdaddy53 said:


> No, it just gets tacked on in 5 places 1/2" long. I spoke with the tech at Bob's yesterday for about 30 minutes about the process. He's been there since they started.



What is the smallest outboard they will fit? Would it fit my 30 e-tec?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Sublime said:


> What is the smallest outboard they will fit? Would it fit my 30 e-tec?


I'm not sure, I know with some modifications it could possibly fit. There are several sizes and configurations. I would call Bob's and ask.


----------



## devrep

I spoke to the nosecone guy at Bob's also a few weeks ago, they have one that will fit my hatsu 50 2 stroke, don't remember which one. I didn't think to ask about the welding and heat. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Sublime said:


> What is the smallest outboard they will fit? Would it fit my 30 e-tec?


Looks like 20hp on most of them. There are several models with different water pickup hole configurations. 
http://www.bobsmachine.com/Nose-cones-low-water-pickups-Kits-and-accessories_c21.htm


----------



## EdK13

Smackdaddy53 said:


> This is what it will look like when I'm done. I also have a prototype prop in the works that is going to blow you guy's minds. I can't disclose any information until I get the OK from the designer.
> View attachment 11096


Can confirm. I have seen the black op prop of which he speaks. Code named ZC Grass Saver 2000 for this venue and it might completely revolutionize the skinny water game ... in Texas.


----------



## Sublime

EdK13 said:


> Can confirm. I have seen the black op prop of which he speaks. Code named ZC Grass Saver 2000 for this venue it might completely revolutionize the skinny water game ... in Texas.


Is it anything like the prop that Railbird dude was working on ?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

EdK13 said:


> Can confirm. I have seen the black op prop of which he speaks. Code named ZC Grass Saver 2000 for this venue it might completely revolutionize the skinny water game ... in Texas.


I may just have to run it for a year before I post anything about it. If tunnels are taboo a prop like that may smoke the server.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Sublime said:


> Is it anything like the prop that Railbird dude was working on ?


I sent you a message.


----------



## jtf

I am about to add my second prop tunnel, first was an old welded Lowe 16/48. The new one is 17/56 prop tunnel Alweld Marsh. 

If the fuel tank is up front with the anchor and trolling batteries, you can put these in very+ shallow, in my case, rocky rivers. 

Now I'm searching for an good Yamaha 2 stroke in 40 hp. Having no luck and may opt for the Merc 4 stroke 40hp at 215 lbs. (Might try the want adds)

The few times I fished north of Cedar Key, the Lowes did fine with gear and two.


----------

