Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
snoozebutton

Transom saver or not?

27 posts in this topic

If your trailer rides low and you're forced to keep the motor at at least half tilt to keep the skeg from hitting the road it would make sense to me to use one.

I've talked to a few people and 2 of them say a transom saver is worse for your motor than not having one. One guy swears by the M-Y Wedge, makes several trips to Lake Erie each summer, and has never had a problem. He says that all the shock from the trailer is transfered to the motor.

Just wondering what everyone else's thoughts are on transom savers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wedge does nothing to protect your transom. It takes weight off the hydroaulics only.

Hands down, no question, every time the boat goes down the road there my transom saver is hooked up. If the boat is properly straped down there is no trailer force that can transfer to the motor.

One thing I've noticed in the past few years as I've worked on a few boats is the older boats have thicker guage aluminum and more beefy transoms. As they get newer, the aluminum gets thinner, there's less gussets, and my opinion is the overall strength is less. You may survive longer in an older boat without a transom saver. Then again, the older boats have that much more wear and tear on them already.

Lots of differing opinions on this one. As for me, even when I'm trailering less than a mile from my house to the lake my transom saver is hooked up.

Otherwise, Valv may have some replacement transoms still for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response Boilerguy.

I've read on a different site that the force of bumps in the road on your transom is no worse than going to full throttle from a stand still on the lake. Any thoughts on that argument?

Just so you know, my boat is going to have one but since I decided to put one on, I've come across these arguments against using them. It makes sense to me to have one, just trying to find out both sides of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read on a different site that the force of bumps in the road on your transom is no worse than going to full throttle from a stand still on the lake. Any thoughts on that argument?

Different site??? Shame on you. laugh Just kiddin.

I suppose that arguement could be made. However, think of it this way.......how many times in the lifetime of a boat will it go from a standstill to full throttle as compared to how many road bumps will it encounter. My guess is your boat will encounter about a million more road bumps than hole shots.

Imagine yourself standing there, holding onto a 12 pound splitting maul. Hold it straight up and down with your hand by the head of the maul. That's your boat while in the water. Now, hold the maul at an angle. That's your boat going down the road with the motor tilted. With the motor tilted there is just so much more weight extended out away from the transom that the transom has to hold. High school physics was a few years ago for me but the closer your body you can carry the weight the easier and less stressful it is on your body.

The main arguement against using transom savers is guys will say that going down the road, the shocks the trailer adsorbs will transfer up and down motion to the lower unit on the motor, therefore flexing the hydraulics of the tilt/trim, therefore damaging the tilt/trim and the transom. If the boat is properly strapped so it can not flex, and the rear of the boat travels the same (up and down)as the trailer, there is no motion to adsorb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a firm believer in transom savers and am not a fan of the wedge.

Comparing what the boat does on the water to what it does on the trailer is pointless ---- it's apples and oranges ----- bottom line is a transom saver will protect your transom as well as your motor while you are on the trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wedge does nothing to protect your transom. It takes weight off the hydroaulics only.

Not exactly.

It serves the same purpose of the conventional transom saver in that it prevents the engine from bouncing, but it does it in a different manner. This comparison has been analyzed a thousand times on hundreds of websites so we probably don't have to go through it again.

Bottom line, get a transom saver of some sort. It's better than nothing regardless of the style you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comparison has been analyzed a thousand times on hundreds of websites so we probably don't have to go through it again.

I realize that and idealy I'd like to see the outboard, trailer, and boat manufacturers do some testing to see what system is most effective but as far as I know, this hasn't been done. My thinking is the transom saver is the best protection you can use and until I see an actual test to prove that wrong, that's the way I'm going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always use a transon saver. Those wedges dont stop the transom stress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bought a new 60 Mercury last week and was reading through the manual and it states to use a transon saver when trailering.I have always used them. Ever follow a boat/motor/trailer on a bumpy road without a transon saver and watch the motor on the bumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would always go with a transom saver. They aren't that expensive, especially when you figure what a new transom would cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always used transom saver as well. Takes alot of pressure off that motor, and helps it out. Well worth the money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how tightly strapped down your boat is, the trailer and boat will always move seperately. The transom saver that props at the lower unit does infact cause stress to the hydraulic trim. Over time it will fail. It may look like the motor and trailer are bouncing the same but I assure you it isn't. I currently use the my wedge but am going to upgrade to the t-mount transom saver.

But it's your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the boat and trailer bounce different, how come my straps never loosen or snap? My trailer has the torschen(spelling?) suspension. When I strap the boat down there is no way that there is even 1 or 2 mm of travel. Boat goes up, trailer goes up. Simple. The wedge will take the stress of the hydrolics yes, but not the stress of the transom. Last I checked the hydrolics are far cheaper and easier to replace than the transom. I hope I don't offend you but when strapped down properly my boat and trailer are as one. The transom save puts the weight of my 125 on the trailer instead of the transom..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transom saver doesn't remove the weight of the engine from the transom and places it on the trailer. The weight is still on the transom, the only thing the transom saver does (bar or wedge type, doesn't matter) is keep the shock force from being applied to the transom. The static weight is still there. The wedge does the same thing as the bar in that it is a brace to prevent the engine from bouncing. No bounce, no shock force. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I picked up my boat the salesman told me not to get one because it was to hard on the hydraulics for the trim/tilt. And that most transoms these days can handle it without. I am still debating given the opinions on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I picked up my boat the salesman told me not to get one because it was to hard on the hydraulics for the trim/tilt.

Regardless of what variety you get (wedge vs traditional) unless you have a boat with less than 40hp or so, I would get one. Steve Bakken on this forum can attest to the number of transom's he's replaced that did not utilize a transom saver.

marine_man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Marine Man. I've seen them for $35 at Fleet. For that price, it's cheap insurance IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how tightly strapped down your boat is, the trailer and boat will always move seperately. The transom saver that props at the lower unit does infact cause stress to the hydraulic trim. Over time it will fail. It may look like the motor and trailer are bouncing the same but I assure you it isn't. I currently use the my wedge but am going to upgrade to the t-mount transom saver.

But it's your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of a problem caused by using a transom saver, including failed hydraulics. I have heard of plenty of problems from not using them.

1,000 to 2,000 miles trailering a year is nothing. Sometimes I do 1,000 or close to it in a weekend. I've been using transom savers since the early - mid '90s and have never had a problem, and don't see myself changing anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one were to geek out and do a vector analysis on a traditional transom saver vs. a mywedge, the mywedge hands down supports far more engine mass in a linear path to your trailer compared to a bar running to your lower unit from the trailer. A traditional transom saver does not support the engine significantly and does not translate the energy to the trailer while your bouncing down the road. Neither device takes any of the force off the boats transom while traveling.

The MyWedge translates the force of the engine through the hydraulics region. Both the motor and the boat are designed with this point in mind. With a traditional, the force goes through the hinge point of the motor which is up higher on the transom. Both keep your engine from rocking and flexing your transom. The MyWedge, though cheap and simple is effective and IMO a better solution because the force is lower on your transom.

Boats and motors do not stay in contact no matter how tightly strapped down. Steel flexes and straps stretch and momentum/energy is conserved, true that. Use a transom saver, they save transoms.

LB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here is the real answer to this old question: call the boat manufacturer. Not the dealer, but the guys who make the boats. Then report back to us what they said.

I had my Alumacraft down to the factory last year and the guys who's job it is to fix this things told me to use one. These guys replace transoms for the guys who don't use a saver.

So if you want the correct answer, ask the guys who built your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that. Makes alot of sense. The guy who builds the boat would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to touch the "opinion" part of this conversation, because frankly, I'm not enough of an engineer to explain or understand the physics of it. I will however state fact, as fact is unable to be argued with. In the 25 years that we've been repairing boats and replacing transoms, we've never replaced a transom for a customer who used a transom saver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Aczr2k, So zinc plated screws can be used with aluminum?
    • I guess the one positive regarding this Carrier deal is at least, of what I've seen from watching some of them, the press starting to question government involvement in  private enterprise and cronyism.   It only took them eight years but better late than never, I guess.
    • They're made by NGP, an industrial producer in Ningbo, China. Good luck getting service or parts on that, is all I'll say. I know all the other augers engines, etc, are made in China, but they also have been around for years with an established company, which is a huge difference. I'd be real cautious...
    • I use 100 pound power pro braid never had any issues with it.
    • I've been looking into them.   I believe 33 is a typo.
    • Old fashioned black Dacron musky line. Durable tough  Have thought of trying  50 or 100lb flouro but knots are hard to do in it then you have to use crimps etc more point to fail. Interested to see what others do.   Mwal
    • I kinda wish Parise would have opted for the surgery this offseason and miss the first month or so, rather than to rehab it.  Its starting to show.
    • Here is good overview article that might be interesting...   https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/science-behind-cwd-management/   The Science Behind CWD Management Why Manage CWD? Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has the potential to negatively impact deer herds wherever the disease occurs. CWD is always fatal and while there have only been 13 cases detected in Virginia, as of February 2016, CWD could have serious negative impacts on the state’s deer population if it became established and widely prevalent (Almberg et al. 2011). CWD infection decreases deer survival odds and lowers total life expectancy (Miller et al. 2008). If a large percentage of the population were to become infected there could be negative impacts for the population, including: A decline in doe survival, which results in an overall reduced population (Gross and Miller 2001); Fewer older bucks, as male animals are more likely to be infected due to specific male social and behavioral tendencies (Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014); and An overall decline in population (Gross and Miller 2001, Almberg et al. 2011), as exhibited in Colorado. In the area of Colorado with highest CWD prevalence, mule deer numbers have plummeted by 45%, in spite of good habitat and protection from human hunting (Miller et al. 2008). DGIF is concerned about the impact CWD could have on Virginia’s deer herd; once CWD has become well established in an area, its persistence in the environment makes eradication extremely difficult, if not impossible. Taking action to keep the percentage of infected animals low helps to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of CWD to new areas, and also helps to slow the transmission of the disease between individuals. Understanding the Spread of CWD CWD prions, which are the infectious proteins that cause the disease, are found in saliva, urine, feces, and blood (Mathiason et al. 2006, Mathiason et al. 2009). They can persist for years outside the body, in soil and in other substances, and can be transmitted by animals that are not yet showing symptoms of the disease (Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). Halting or slowing the spread of CWD is therefore a matter of reducing transmission between deer and making deer less likely to pick up prions from the environment (Mathiason et al. 2009, Grear et al. 2010, Storm et al. 2013). Differences in behavior make tracking the spread of CWD different between does and bucks and between younger and older adults. Bucks are more likely to become infected, for reasons that are not well understood (Grear et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014). Higher CWD prevalence is found in older age classes of bucks (Grear et al 2006). Adult bucks make long excursions outside their home range, bringing them into contact with a wider area and more individual deer (Karns 2011). Young bucks are more likely to disperse from their mother’s home range and can cover many kilometers, thereby potentially spreading the disease across the landscape (McCoy et al. 2005). Young bucks infected with CWD may not be indicative of established CWD presence at the location they were killed because the buck may have been traveling. Does are relatively sedentary, usually spending their lives near their place of birth and with a related social group. Does only rarely make excursions (Kolodzinski et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2010, Grear et al. 2010). Locations where infected does are found are likely to be a source of further infected deer (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). An infected doe suggests that CWD is established in the population where that doe was killed (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). Of Virginia’s thirteen infected deer (as of February 2016), just four were does. Of the nine infected bucks, seven were harvested within just a few miles of the does, suggesting a small cluster of infection. The last two bucks were killed several miles from the cluster. The fact that these two outliers were young bucks makes it likely, though not certain, that these individuals were on the move, dispersing from their birth places. Managing CWD Due to the nature of the prions which cause CWD (please see the What Are Prions page for more information), treatment of diseased animals is not an option. Research suggests that there is some hope of managing CWD, and that the best methods available are: Decreasing transmission opportunity by:Lowering the density of the deer population A lower density population surrounding a location of known infection reduces the chances of deer picking up CWD prions from the environment, or from each other. Research indicates that indirect transmission is just as important as animal-to-animal transmission (Storm et al. 2013). Population reduction could reduce contacts between infected and susceptible individuals and consequently reduce the disease transmission rate. Analysis of spatial data indicates that CWD is clustered on the landscape, from which one could infer that deer near CWD-positive deer are more likely to be infected (Joly et al. 2003.) Earn-a-Buck, currently in effect in Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties (the cluster of infected deer is located in Frederick County), is designed to reduce the overall deer population by focusing more hunting pressure on the female segment of the population. Banning feeding or baiting of deer in areas with CWD CWD prions can be found in saliva (Mathiason et al. 2009), and feed or bait piles are excellent modalities to transfer saliva between deer. Feed and bite piles also artificially congregate deer, thereby facilitating transmission through urine and feces. Prevent the introduction of CWD prions into new areas: VDGIF prohibits the movement of deer carcasses out of the CWD Containment Area until after they have been processed according to guidelines described in Transporting Carcasses Within and Out of the Containment Area. VDGIF prohibits the transport of carcasses from states/provinces listed as CWD Carcass Restriction Zones into Virginia unless they have already been processed according to these guidelines. VDGIF prohibits the possession and use of attractants made from real deer urine or other natural body fluids from deer while afield. CWD prions may be found in the urine of infected deer even if the deer is not showing symptoms (John et al. 2013). There is no live animal test for CWD that is approved by the USDA, therefore deer farms producing and bottling urine cannot guarantee that they are collecting urine from healthy animals. There is no economically viable way to test urine for CWD after collection. Doing nothing to manage CWD is not a satisfactory option, as shown by a number of studies that have examined hunters’ attitudes toward current and potential strategies for managing CWD (Vaske 2010). Among hunters in most states and studies, (a) testing harvested animals for CWD and using hunters to reduce herds in CWD areas were acceptable strategies, (b) agencies taking no action and allowing CWD to take its natural course were considered unacceptable, and (c) using agency staff to reduce herds in CWD areas was controversial. Hunters also generally supported efforts to minimize spread of CWD and eliminate the disease from animal herds (Vaske 2010). A VDGIF survey conducted following the discovery of CWD in Frederick County in 2009 concluded that respondents supported five of seven potential strategies to control CWD in affected areas, including mandatory disease testing of hunter-killed deer, deer feeding prohibitions, deer carcass movement restrictions, restrictions on deer rehabilitation, and reduction of deer populations using hunters (VDGIF 2010, unpublished data). Respondents did not support the use of sharpshooting to reduce localized deer populations (42% opposed, 36% supported, 22% were neutral), but the strongest opposition was recorded for the option that described a complete lack of effort or attempt to manage CWD (79 % opposed, 8% supported).   (the references are at the link and appear to all be from various scientific type journals)
    • The recount effort underway in Wisconsin is turning out to have some disappointing results for former Green Party nominee Jill Stein and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. By the end of the fifth day, and after more than 1 million votes were recounted, Trump grew his lead by just over two dozen votes.     Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, Clinton has only gained five votes after the state’s two largest counties completed their recount.     
    • It turns out that there haven't been many studies of long term impact of cwd, that I could find.    Here is a write up about one of them, from Wyoming.    http://www.wyofile.com/study-chronic-wasting-disease-kills-19-deer-annually/ and this one... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127 Chronic Wasting Disease Drives Population Decline of White-Tailed Deer David R. Edmunds , Matthew J. Kauffman, Brant A. Schumaker, Frederick G. Lindzey, Walter E. Cook, Terry J. Kreeger, Ronald G. Grogan, Todd E. Cornish      
  • Our Sponsors