'94 sport nautique ballast install question

[kylem03]

So I am putting in an auto ballast system in my '94 sport and we all know space is a limited commodity in these boats. Especially in the bulge area and engine compartment. The system will consist of 4 simer reversible pumps off a manifold coming from a 1.25" intake.

My question is, how often have you heard of a raw water intake for the engine failing? The reason I ask is to question the need for a hard-plumbed ball valve off the intake as opposed to a thru hull with a 90 deg. Hose barb with reinforced rubber hose running between it and the manifold.

Regarding a ball valve, I have concerns over structural requirements of the hull when you place a 90 elbow and ball valve on it. Also, this takes up a good amount of room and the only reason to have a valve is if you can reach it.

I have an '83 and the raw water intake has never given me issues, so this is the reason I ask why not just run a line from a thru hull with a hose barb, as long as the line is reinforced and double hose clamped.

Any thoughts?

Kyle

[s_kelley2000]

Regarding a ball valve, I have concerns over structural requirements of the hull when you place a 90 elbow and ball valve on it. Also, this takes up a good amount of room and the only reason to have a valve is if you can reach it.

I am not sure what you are getting at with structural requirements but if you are worried about the weight of the elbow and ball valve causing stress on the hull I don't think you need to worry about that. These hulls are THICK and plenty of people have run the elbows and ball valves off of their ballast thru hulls without issue.

I am not sure if the ball valve is needed but if it was my boat I'd add it. Chances are you will never need it but if something happens you will be in trouble quick with water coming in through a 1.25" hole. On the other hand if you can't reach the valve in an emergency then it won't be any help.

Where are you planning to mount the pumps? I am not sure which model Simers you are looking at but I don't think their pumps are ignition protected like the Johnsons and Jabscos are so you might be limited as to where you can mount them because they can't be near potential gas fumes.

Good luck with your install!

[kylem03]

Thanks Shawn,

When asking about structural integrity, I am talking about the weight of the ball valve and elbow hanging off the fitting and whether a backing plate is needed for the larger fittings (>1"). Rollers and things can pound these hulls, and with that size fitting it is getting heavy, at least to the point to make me question whether the fitting and/or hull can take it.

Regarding pump placement, I am going to place the pumps under the gunnels towards the rear on the sides where the upper seat cushion covers. There's some room on either side, and there shouldnt be a problem regarding ignition protection, as, even though they are near the gas tank, they are in open air, and gas fumes sink to the bilge, not spread out under the gunnels. Also planning on making a vertical barrier on the mounting plate between the pumps and the gas tank to further "separate" the two.

As far as thru hull placement goes, that depends on my need for a ball-valve. The only place to reach it at all times in these boats is to place it up by the driver under the engine cover basically in-line with the tow pylon. The problem with putting it up here is you then have 10+ feet of hose between there and the pumps/manifold which equates to head and drag. Also, not much room there for 1 large fitting or even 2 smaller ones. I could put the thru hull(s) (maybe 2-1") under the platform that the engine hatch is attached to (running 2 pumps per intake) on either side of the prop shaft, but then I couldn't ever get to the valves in case of an emergency if I ever have one, especially if the ballast were full. for this reason, I would carry a couple of rubber plugs in the boat to swim underneath and jam them in the opening if I ever had a problem. This makes me lean towards placing 2-1" 90 deg. thru hulls with hose barbs in this location.

Am I missing anything here? I know ball valves are a good idea in theory, but the reality is that they don't do much good in the typical places they would be located in this boat.

I'll try and take some pics this evening...

Thanks,

Kyle

[Chexi]

Not sure if this helps, but you do not need to use 1" hardware. If you are using 2 thru-hulls anyway, you can use 3/4", which is a lot lighter and smaller than the 1" hardware. You can run 2 pumps off a 3/4" without losing any flow rate (assuming the simers have 1/2 inch inside diameter openings like the Jabscos and Johnsons). You can actually run 3 pumps of a single 3/4" thru-hull and in theory lose no flow, but due to the elbow and simply the fact of this being the real world, you might lose just a little bit of flow rate with 3 pumps of a single 3/4". A 3/4" opening has over 3x the area as a 1/2" opening.

[kylem03]

Chexi,

I appreciate you chiming in, as I have taken a look at a few of the ballast installs you did. I believe you used 1" hardware in both, didn't you? I like the idea (pricewise) of using 3/4" hardware, but if the thru hulls are placed up by the driver/passenger next to the pylon, I wanted to keep the run back to the pumps as large of diameter hose as possible so that the effect of drag inside the hose would be negligible. Maybe if I go with 3/4" fittings, I could run 1" hose all the way back to the T's and then go to the pumps with 3/4 hose, which is what I have leftover from my install on my '83. Otherwise, because it is tight in there, I was thinking of using a single 1.5" or 1.25" fitting there; however, I'm not sure if it'll fit and I don't have the fittings, not to mention the price of the large fittings is ~ $180.

I have include 3 photos: one showing the area in the forward bilge where there may be room for a larger thru hull or 2 smaller ones, the area on the starbord rear side under the gunnel where I plan to have 2 pumps (one pump will go on the other side, and a pump will go in the ski-locker). The other photo shows the rear bilge and the fact that there is almost no room to put a thru hull. 9" on either side of the drife shaft port lands me smack dab in the middle of a trailer bunk.

Any other thoughts?

What would you guys do? I'm still not sure I "need" the ball valves either, but if I can reach 'em, I would say I am inclined to have them; otherwise, maybe not so much.

Thanks,

Kyle

[Chexi]

I used 1" on my 99 Air, but 3/4" on my 2000 SAN. The 1" were overkill, more expensive, took up more room, and were heavier. I think you do need to convert the hose at some point to 1" to fit into the pumps. I will check tonight or tomorrow.

Are you using 3 pumps and 3 bags for 4 pumps and 4 bags?

[kylem03]

4 pumps for 4 bags. 2 pumps off either thru hull. two bags on either side of the motor, one in front of the back seat, and one in the ski locker. One of the thru hulls will have to t right after the valve to go forward to the ski locker pump.

On my last install, I ran 3 pumps off a 1.5" intake leading to a 1.5" manifold that sat below the water line (always full, virtually no head). From there, there was less than 2' of 3/4" hose to each of the pumps, and the 3/4" lines sent plenty of water, so maybe I'll do 3/4" hardware with 1" hose to the "t's" and then 3/4 from there as it is easer to reduce from 3/4 to hose barb for the pumps than from 1" to hose barb.

Kyle

[Chexi]

I think I converted the 3/4" lines to 1" on my rear bag lines, but only because I already had 1" Fly High quick connects.

[kylem03]

I see. I'm curious now: were your 1" lines to the pumps always full of water, or did they ever have air in them? I'm thinking that if the pump ID is .5", it alone may not be able to draw enough to totally fill a 1" line. I never had such an issue with my 3/4 lines, but I wonder where that cut off would be.

Based on your experience, do you think there's enough room up by the pylon for 2-3/4" thru hulls and hardware? maybe on the starboard side with 5-6" between thru hulls? Also, with 1" hose, do you think the flow reduction via drag will be negligible? The hoses should all have water in them anyway because they are below the water line, so the "head" really shouldn't be increased, even though the pumps are 10'+ down line of the intake...

Thanks,

Kyle

[Chexi]

Well, if the 1" lines have air in them, it is limited to whatever is in them, because no air should be coming in from the lake when filling. I have check valves on the vent lines, so no air should be coming from there when emptying. All I know is that they work, and I never notice air going into the bags. They also compress down really tight when emptying thanks to the check valves. I think I have see-through lines, so I will take a look this weekend, but I don't recall seeing any air bubbles.

The 3/4" ball valves and elbows are pretty small. There should be room up there.

Personally, I think the distance of the pump heads (above the water line) is significantly more important than the length of any hose that is below the waterline. Ultimately, the time differential due to hose drag is going to be so insignificant that you will never notice it. I would go with what (a) fits better and if possible (b) is less expensive and lighter.

You have to remember that you also hve to get wrenches in here to tighten the elbow and the ball valve. Also, if you are worried about inside diameter, go thru-hull --> 90 elbow --> low profile brass nipple (rather than a street elbow) --> ball valve. You lose some inside diameter on the street elbows, but they are stronger, cheaper, and take up less space.

[ally505]

I've got a 97 sport, so same hull and configuration to yours. I plumbed in an auto ballast system, side sacs either side of the engine and a sac in the ski locker. I am running just one jabsco reversible pump, I have no problem waiting ten minutes or so for the sacs to fill and normally fill whilst on the move to where we board. Initially I tee'd the jabsco off the raw water intake, which was fine until I managed to stare the idling engine as the raw water pump impeller had taken a set over the winter and was not pumping efficiently. I have now placed a dedicated 3/4 Intake on the opposite side of the hull from the raw water intake. I have a 3 way manifold under the ski locker hatch so easily accessible from the drivers seat. The 3 way manifold allows me to open or close the 3 valves as I pleas, I haven't quite got round to adding a vent for the sac in the locker, on the list for this year. I was a little concerned about hose length, running from a pump behind the engine, up to the manifold at the ski locker, then back down the gunnels to the rear sacs, but to be honest I have had no problems. So, simple install, only one pump and flexible filling. Hope that helps.

[ally505]

Interesting battery location. I've always thought about using that space to add some additional ballast but havent put any thought into how to effectively secure it. Presently I have small bags full of lead (around 10kg per bag) under and behind the back seat, on top of the fuel cell, and where you have placed your pump. This has given my around 180kg hidden ballast but I have lost some of the useable storage under the seats that I would like to get back. Maybe another little project...

[kylem03]

If I could get away with some permanent weight, I would; however, I keep the boat on a lift so all ballast needs to be out when I put it away at the end of the day.

Also, I'd be happy with an intake opposite the raw water intake but I couldn't reach a valve there in the event of an emergency. If I do just one intake there it'll likely be a 1.25 or 1.5" with a 90 hose barb and I'll take my chances that nothing goes wrong.

Regarding the battery location, I'm starting to dislike it because it is going to make running power for amps and ballast power tough/expensive. I need 20' of 4 awg power and ground wire.

Kyle