bolger@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:16 -0000
From: "pvanderwaart"

Subject: Re: Micro comparisons


>Anyone considering Micro, and who rejects Long Micro as too big,
should run Oldshoe (http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/oldshoe.htm)
through the mental processor. It's enough smaller to make the
building easier and quicker, but the cockpit may be better. No cabin
at all of course, and it would take some doing to make it a cruiser.
>Still, I sometimes wonder why it hasn't been more popular.


I've wondered about that too, for it seems to me that in many ways it would make
a good boat for an open boat cruising enthusiast, and an inexpensive day boat
for others.

I think the answer must be that weight and slow speed are prices people are
prepared to pay for sheltered accommodation - but a lighter, faster boat is more
appealing to them the rest of the time.

I'm half-guessing about the speed bit, but I don't think the Oldshoe is going to
be a Laser.


Gav



---------------------------------
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Does anyone know how well the Teal performs in the hands of a fairly
lightly built ten-year old? My son needs a more challenging boat, and
for a change, I'm wonder whether I should build him Teal instead of
one of my Mouse boat variants. Another Mouse is the most obvious
choice at present for a host of reasons, but I'm willing to be
persuaded!

Gav

Such a thing?
Mark

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> Anyone considering Micro
> should run Oldshoe (http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/oldshoe.htm)
> through the mental processor. It's enough smaller to make the
> building easier and quicker, but the cockpit may be better. No
cabin
> at all of course, and it would take some doing to make it a
cruiser.
> Still, I sometimes wonder why it hasn't been more popular.
>
> Peter


Peter,
     Old Shoe jsut couldn't fill her bigger sisters shoes :-) And
that is what I think the "problem" is vis-à-vis the Old Shoe. If
there was no Micro, then I suspect the Old Shoe would be much more
popular.In fact,so popular that crafty amateurs would scheme ways of
putting some kind of little cabin on her to at least overnight in.In
short order,folks would be wondering "why not just use 2 full-length
sheets of plywood for the hull sides?" adding a few feet in length
to gain added space and comfort.All of this would lead to a Yahoo
Group called OLD SHOE,where the membership would hotly discuss
exactly how much more lead they would need in a lengthened Old
Shoe,how much the sail area must be increased,whether 100lbs of
water weighed more then 100 lbs of lead and where the best place to
postion it would be for best effect etc.... Finally,someone would
commission Bolger to draw up a"proper" bigger version of Old Shoe
for those who think they need more space and the Micro would be
born. Unfortunately, things did not happen in that order and the
Queen of the Fleet was born first.
That's my take on it,viewed from a not too unbiased eye.


Sincerely,

Peter Lenihan

Peter Lenihan <lestat@...>

Peter,
     jsut

j'sut ? is this some weird French-Canadian term? !! or JSUT a case of
Home-brewed dyslexia? !@!*

On a more relevant topic. I had a fairly detailed conversation by phone the
other night(actually early morning 1.15 a.m. my time-Australian) with Phil
Bolger and Susanne Altenburger about the progress of "Silver Blaze" a 26'0" x
6'6" Torpedo-Sterned Inboard speedboat that they're in the process of designing
for me. Apparently the design has progressed quite a bit and they  will post me
out some drawings soon so I can have a long awaited look at her. Hopefully the
design will be completed in the next couple of months or so, though I probably
won't be able to begin construction till April-May at the earliest.

My father has just about finished his Bolger designed 15' x7'1" Harbinger
Catboat so we are expecting to launch her sometime in February.I'll post some
photos.

Hugo Tyson.    Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Greetings
Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Tyson <hhetyson@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
>     jsut
>
> j'sut ? is this some weird French-Canadian term? !! or JSUT a case
of Home-brewed dyslexia? !@!*


Sorry Hugo,it was a mere typo for JUST. I have a standing policy to
never come anywhere near a keyboard while under the magic spell of
the demon. Besides, I make a big enough fool of myself already
without any outside agency to assist me :-)
Mind you,when under the spell,I have been known to converse in three
different languages and actually have folks understand
me......weird,eh?!

Sincerely,

Peter"stone cold sober" Lenihan,from along the shores of the arctic
cold shores of the St.Lawrence..........

Well, Peter, that’s because you’ve never seen PCB’s cruising version of
Oldshoe, called ‘Hightops’…….



I have a recently acquired Oldshoe under a tarp (and under a considerable
amount of snow and ice) in the back yard of my shop, waiting for the first
sail of spring.  I understand she moves well unless confronted with a
certain amount of chop.  We shall see!



But I think the answer to t’other Peter’s question is simply that, when
you’re comparing building costs, why not build the Micro?  I do think,
however, that Oldshoe has a far more comfortable cockpit.  It is, in fact, a
cockpit with fairing bits tacked on fore and aft.



David Romasco



   _____

From: Peter Lenihan [mailto:lestat@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:09 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Micro comparisons



--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> Anyone considering Micro
> should run Oldshoe (http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/oldshoe.htm)
> through the mental processor. It's enough smaller to make the
> building easier and quicker, but the cockpit may be better. No
cabin
> at all of course, and it would take some doing to make it a
cruiser.
> Still, I sometimes wonder why it hasn't been more popular.
>
> Peter


Peter,
     Old Shoe jsut couldn't fill her bigger sisters shoes :-) And
that is what I think the "problem" is vis-à-vis the Old Shoe. If
there was no Micro, then I suspect the Old Shoe would be much more
popular.In fact,so popular that crafty amateurs would scheme ways of
putting some kind of little cabin on her to at least overnight in.In
short order,folks would be wondering "why not just use 2 full-length
sheets of plywood for the hull sides?" adding a few feet in length
to gain added space and comfort.All of this would lead to a Yahoo
Group called OLD SHOE,where the membership would hotly discuss
exactly how much more lead they would need in a lengthened Old
Shoe,how much the sail area must be increased,whether 100lbs of
water weighed more then 100 lbs of lead and where the best place to
postion it would be for best effect etc.... Finally,someone would
commission Bolger to draw up a"proper" bigger version of Old Shoe
for those who think they need more space and the Micro would be
born. Unfortunately, things did not happen in that order and the
Queen of the Fleet was born first.
That's my take on it,viewed from a not too unbiased eye.


Sincerely,

Peter Lenihan



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I understand she moves well unless confronted with a
> certain amount of chop.

I was thinking of posting that Oldshoe might have some of the virtues
of the Herreshoff 12 1/2, especially as a balm to anxiety in rough
water, and you pop up with this more or less contrary view.

Another Oldshoe downside is that someone looking at a 12 foot boat
may well **think** a light weight, centerboard boat is more suitable
for trailering and whatnot.

Peter

Remember, I'm quoting hearsay on Oldshoe's performance; actual experience
yet to come... but I suspect the somewhat globular proportions may have more
influence than that keel and ballast.  The Herreshoff 12-1/2 has
considerably sleeker lines and much more weight than Oldshoe (1350 vs. 450,
for heaven's sake!)



I hear you on trailering; I'm still assembling a suitable trailer.  The
relative merits between Oldshoe and a centerboard boat probably seem more
obvious to people of a certain age who like to sail sitting upright.  I've
seen sailing Oldshoe compared to sailing a 30-footer, in terms of motion and
comfort.  That speaks to me.



David Romasco



   _____

From: pvanderwaart [mailto:pvanderw@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:04 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Micro comparisons



> I understand she moves well unless confronted with a
> certain amount of chop.

I was thinking of posting that Oldshoe might have some of the virtues
of the Herreshoff 12 1/2, especially as a balm to anxiety in rough
water, and you pop up with this more or less contrary view.

Another Oldshoe downside is that someone looking at a 12 foot boat
may well **think** a light weight, centerboard boat is more suitable
for trailering and whatnot.

Peter



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cb05spg/M=268585.4464812.5643763.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075734311/A=1950447/R=0/*http:/ashnin.com/clk/muryu
taitakenattogyo?YH=4464812&yhad=1950447> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=268585.4464812.5643763.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1950447/rand=205567879>



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
  that's because you've never seen PCB's cruising version of Oldshoe,
called `Hightops'…….

Now David,

Don't tease me like that! Please post more on Hightops, including a
sketch, cartoon or photo.

Drool, Drool, Drool!

J'sut le mouton noir de Largo, FL.
Blackheart Bo'son Bruce
Kicking aside the empty bottles of Newcastle Nut Brown,and Sam Adams
to get to the keyboard after last nights practice party for Tampa
Bay's pirate fest "Gasparill 2004" happening this Friday.

I've been reading the State Series and Tennessee somewhat desultorily,
and now wish that I'd been mofre observant :-)

This is possibly just idle curiosity, as I plan to build a Sneakeasy
later this winter, but...

Does anyone remember any discussion as to how large these sharpies
must be (at a minimum, in both length and width)to allow standing
headroom (6'2" in my case, 1.88m)??? I've looked at Cabin Clam Skiff
(why didn't PCB name that "Saloon Launch"??? as John E. calls it :-)
and wondered about it's potential for a "cheapish" Florida
live-aboard.

I have an available 4-cyl I/O drive, free, which is likely to be
overkill for it, but would run more cheaply than a 65-100hp outboard,
esp at 6-8 kts, which is my preferred cruising speed if I don't have
anywhere important to go.

If you remember such a discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to it, or
even an approximate date.

TIA/The Fader

That's "GasparillA", my dear Hector.  Nice to see you're drinking lager
actually made for human consumption these days..



Sadly, the HighTops PCB design exercise was in fact an exercise in dry wit,
which in retrospect may be all wet.



Say, which boat is logging more time these days (or are you clapped under
hatches on the Bounty)?



David Romasco



   _____

From: Bruce Hector [mailto:bruce_hector@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:34 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Micro comparisons



--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
that's because you've never seen PCB's cruising version of Oldshoe,
called `Hightops'...

Now David,

Don't tease me like that! Please post more on Hightops, including a
sketch, cartoon or photo.

Drool, Drool, Drool!

J'sut le mouton noir de Largo, FL.
Blackheart Bo'son Bruce
Kicking aside the empty bottles of Newcastle Nut Brown,and Sam Adams
to get to the keyboard after last nights practice party for Tampa
Bay's pirate fest "Gasparill 2004" happening this Friday.



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John, here's a twist that might interest you:
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/markv/39/index.htm

   _____

From: john_fader [mailto:johnfader@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:03 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] State Series ----> Cabin Clam Skiff





I've been reading the State Series and Tennessee somewhat desultorily,
and now wish that I'd been mofre observant :-)

This is possibly just idle curiosity, as I plan to build a Sneakeasy
later this winter, but...

Does anyone remember any discussion as to how large these sharpies
must be (at a minimum, in both length and width)to allow standing
headroom (6'2" in my case, 1.88m)??? I've looked at Cabin Clam Skiff
(why didn't PCB name that "Saloon Launch"??? as John E. calls it :-)
and wondered about it's potential for a "cheapish" Florida
live-aboard.

I have an available 4-cyl I/O drive, free, which is likely to be
overkill for it, but would run more cheaply than a 65-100hp outboard,
esp at 6-8 kts, which is my preferred cruising speed if I don't have
anywhere important to go.

If you remember such a discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to it, or
even an approximate date.

TIA/The Fader



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12ct2r3t8/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075737885/A=1945637/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Defa
ult?mqso=60178397&partid=4116730> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1945637/rand=323871388>



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nels, consider, in an inverted craft with water ballast tanks awash
while it is certainly true that the ballast is contributing little or
nothing towards righting the craft, it is also certain that it is
contributing nothing towards actually sinking the craft either.

If, however, the same weight of water ballast was replaced with lead,
and considering that the craft is barely afloat in the first place,
the craft would now sink. The denser lead would displace less water,
and down she would go.

If a designer didn't want that scenario to happen then the designer
would have to find space for flotation inside the hull anyway - and
lots of it - to offset that lead. Whereas the water-ballasted design
is already not sinking, and only needs enough flotation high up to
make the boat unstable when inverted.

So, using lead as ballast because it takes up less space is a great
argument if you don't mind sinking. But personally, afloat in the big
wide water with all that can go wrong I'd rather have a boat that
will stay with me when disaster strikes, no matter how crippled she
may be, than a SINKER that will give up the ghost, abandon me, and
disappear under the waves....

Which reminds me of a report I saw recently, in Latitude 38, of a
pinky schooner that did just that recently in the South Seas. Filled
with lead ballast down she went. No storm. No reef. No collision. No
floating containers in mid-ocean. Just a light fog (as I recall).

No, this sinker caught her big keel in a fisherman's trawling net and
got pulled sideways enough to flood. It took two or three minutes,
and she was gone. Her skipper, sailing solo, had just enough time to
take to the inflatable....

John O'Neill

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> There is another disadvantage of a boat with water ballest tanks.
If
> it becomes inverted and fills with water, it can be almost
impossible
> for the occupants to return it upright as they would have to be
> strong enough to lift the weight of the water filled ballest tank
up
> above the water and over 180 degrees to get the boat back on it's
> feet. Not easy to do with 500 pounds of water while you are
yourself
> in the water. Your only option is likely to drain the tank which
may
> be impossible when outside the boat and in the water. It happened
to
> one of Bolger's designs apparently.
>
> "A couple years ago, one of my water-ballested designs met with an
> accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had
positive
> bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom up with the
> outside ballest tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would
have
> righted her and saved some inconvenience,even danger in cold
water."
> BWAOM page 245
>
> So in this case I would rather be in a boat without water ballest
> tanks. Also without the tanks, it would allow more options to load
it
> down with a more effective ballest than water. i.e. lead, rocks,
fat
> guys filled with beer.
>
> Nels

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
> Nels, consider, in an inverted craft with water ballast tanks awash
> while it is certainly true that the ballast is contributing little
or
> nothing towards righting the craft, it is also certain that it is
> contributing nothing towards actually sinking the craft either.
>
My original point was - and still is - that MICRO will not remain
inverted, whereas MB3 (or whatever it is called) might. In fact the
designer said it would not return from an inversion!

My second point was that an unballested hull would be easier to re-
right if inverted - than one with full water ballest tanks.

Of course I agree that any craft that is heavier than the weight of
water it displaces will sink if flooded - no matter if it has a lead
keel or not. Again that is what Archimedes Principle is all about.

Cheers, Nels

Interesting question. In these days of NAAFTA you can find US brand
products that were actually manufactured in Canada (or Mexico) in US
stores for sale under their US brand names. Probably not what you
meant.

If you mean an independent manufacturer, the one that comes to mind
is King Canada (www.kingcanda.com) who CLAIMS to manufacture their
own tools. Since so many of the hand tools look like brand name knock
offs (RO 6" sander looks like Porter-Cable) I suspect these may be
Chinese. But I'd not be surprised to find that their larger shop
tools are Canadian. BTW the King Canada site shows 11 HD looking
planers and one electric hand planer.

Would be a good question for the Canadian Boatbuilders group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canadianboatbuilder. We've had some
discussion about this lately.

Bryant - who has to tell you he is owner of Canadian Boatbuilder.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...> wrote:
> Such a thing?
> Mark

--- David Romasco casually wrote:
> I have a recently acquired Oldshoe

!!!

You probably just picked it up on
a trip to the store for a gallon
of milk and loaf of bread :/

Of course, I am immensely jealous,
must know more details and see photos!

Yes, David,

thanks for reminding me of that one. She's definitely a pretty thinng.

I am hoping that standing headroom ( a bit lower than in MkV39) can be
achieved safely in 31-33' LOA and a bit narrower breadth of beam,
maybe 6' to keep near that 6:1 ratio of L/W. I realize that this is
starting to sound a bit like a stretched Tennessee, but for the flat
bottom.... or like a wider Idaho. However, the basic package of CCS
looks to work well as a liveaboard, as encouraged by the V39.

I did a little research on Musicbox3 which is the Michalak version of
MICRO using water ballest and a single leeboard. It seems the plans
were drawn in 2001 and so far none have been built.

Obviously many people view water ballest as being advantageous and
Michalak is one of those people.

From what I have read, PCB&F are not as enthusiastic about it. Their
one design, (Martha Jane) had some stability problems I have heard.
Since then all their designs seem to favor solid ballest or none at
all.

Cheers, Nels

Hmmm.. you're talking about a 6'x6'x32' enclosed box (and a powerboat to
boot).  I think this is a design area that Bolger would have serious
stability and safety questions on.  I have the plans for Idaho, and have
spent some time thinking about enclosures.  With the best will in the world,
I can't get past a light (1/4") hardtop with a canvas enclosure.  I think
anything more substantial on this sort of hull is hanging it out over the
edge; this, of course, is relative to waters sailed in.



David



   _____

From: john_fader [mailto:johnfader@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 12:17 PM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: State Series ----> Cabin Clam Skiff



Yes, David,

thanks for reminding me of that one. She's definitely a pretty thinng.

I am hoping that standing headroom ( a bit lower than in MkV39) can be
achieved safely in 31-33' LOA and a bit narrower breadth of beam,
maybe 6' to keep near that 6:1 ratio of L/W. I realize that this is
starting to sound a bit like a stretched Tennessee, but for the flat
bottom.... or like a wider Idaho. However, the basic package of CCS
looks to work well as a liveaboard, as encouraged by the V39.



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12ccm7cn3/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075742248/A=1945637/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Defa
ult?mqso=60178397&partid=4116730> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1945637/rand=163832229>



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

...
> My second point was that an unballested hull would
> be easier to re-
> right if inverted - than one with full water ballest
> tanks.
...
> Cheers, Nels
>

This confuses me!  Water trapped up at the highest
point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks are
in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an impediment
to rolling back over.  The "obvious" logic escapes me!

Gene T.

> I am hoping that standing headroom  can be
> achieved safely in 31-33' LOA and a bit narrower breadth of beam,
> maybe 6' to keep near that 6:1 ratio of L/W.

You might check out the 30' Cargo Motorsailer (or whatever the name
is). There is a scan (Cargo MS 30.gif) at Bolger2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/MS%20Cargo%20Boat/
(The other pic there is a pastiche.)

I guess it's a more complicated bottom type, but what a wonderful
boat for laid back cruising. Everyone always wants changed. My first
idea was to make the house continuous and deleted the well deck. My
second thought was want a wonderful spot the well deck would be.

Tom MacNaughton claims that "real liveaboards" remove their inboard
engines and want to eliminate their cockpits because of the "wasted"
space. I would counter-claim that they started with a boat that was
too small.

Peter

DAvid,

those dimensions are for the hull. I'd say that the aft 4' would be
given to power and the fore 6' to an open bow; one doesn't live
"inside" forever :-)Still, a 21-23' box is LARGE.

It is difficult to see how the box can be less than 5 1/2' wide and
have two comfortable berths, though one could lose 6" of that by
putting the berths on the same side and skimping a bit on width in the
galley and the other furniture on that side. Of course, having the
"occasional" berth in the main saloon is no problem for a single
liveaboard.

I visualize the accomodation, from aft going fwd. being engine space,
then in the cabin; Locker on one side, head across, "captain's cabin"
(berth across from desk/library/enclosed reading/charts, etc.) then
the main saloon with a berth on one side, across from open area with
chairs and the helm. Finally, the open foredeck and then anchor/wet
well.

So, maybe it could have 6" side decks and a box that is 6'3" tall, 5'
wide, and 23' long. I wonder what that would do for stability on a 33'
X 6' hull????

Cheers/Fader

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
> Hmmm.. you're talking about a 6'x6'x32' enclosed box (and a
powerboat to
> boot).  I think this is a design area that Bolger would have serious
> stability and safety questions on.  I have the plans for Idaho, and
have
> spent some time thinking about enclosures.  With the best will in
the world,
> I can't get past a light (1/4") hardtop with a canvas enclosure.  I
think
> anything more substantial on this sort of hull is hanging it out
over the
> edge; this, of course, is relative to waters sailed in.
> David

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
>
> This confuses me!  Water trapped up at the highest
> point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks are
> in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an impediment
> to rolling back over.  The "obvious" logic escapes me!
>
> Gene T.

In the article where I read about this the water ballest tanks were
divided into two areas - one in each bilge. The single crew could not
right the boat until he got into water shallow enough where he could
lift the weight of the near tank high enough out of the water to flip
it over. While in the water he could not get enough leverage to do so
no matter what he tried. The most effective way was bearing down on
the near leeboard - using it as a lever. If the tanks had been empty
he could have done it easily is what he claimed. The biggest drawback
in this particular design however, was deemed to be the large cockpit
that was not self-draining once it swamped. The water was coming in
faster than going out - so the weight of the water in the cockpit
plus the water in the ballest tanks and the force of the wind on the
furled sail, caused the boat to roll over. The guy was sleeping in
the cuddy and when he opened the hatch, it filled with water as well.
(The boat was designed as a "coastal cruiser" and got hit with a
thunderstorm while lying offshore to get away from the bugs and
rocks.)

At any rate, that convinced me to follow what Bolger recommends when
it comes to seaworthiness - and that is - a boat that can recover
from a knockdown on it's own.

I live where the water is cold most of the year, and we get some
pretty nasty thunderstorms.

Cheers, Nels

Nels,
This strikes me like the arguments against seat belts.
  A pipe came through the car and stabbed the driver,
they will never get me to wear belts, I don't want
that to happen to me.
I think we are talking about some very bad designs.
Designs where the results of likely occurances were
not accounted for.  The connection with the fact that
water was used as a ballast is loose, probably
coincidence.  Sounds like the design was wide and
stable.  Intentionally designed stable.  Oops, its
stable upside down also.  If it was lighter then it
would be easier to flip over.  Lets throw out the
ballast to make it lighter.  Oh its not stable enough
now.
The design of a boat is a complicated process and
requires more than just banning water ballast to make
a design successful.  Lets not let those newbees
reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
will solve all their problems.
I am sure Mr. Bolger would agree that many factors
prevent a boat from recovering by itself, excess
width, foam ballast in the bilge, a low air filled
cabin with a high water filled cockpit, a direct
impact from a supertanker......

Sincerely,
Gene T.

> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T."
> <goldranger02-boats@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > This confuses me!  Water trapped up at the highest
> > point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks
> are
> > in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an
> impediment
> > to rolling back over.  The "obvious" logic escapes
> me!
> >
> > Gene T.
>
> In the article where I read about this the water
> ballest tanks were
> divided into two areas - one in each bilge. The
> single crew could not
> right the boat until he got into water shallow
> enough where he could
> lift the weight of the near tank high enough out of
> the water to flip
> it over. While in the water he could not get enough
> leverage to do so
> no matter what he tried. The most effective way was
> bearing down on
> the near leeboard - using it as a lever. If the
> tanks had been empty
> he could have done it easily is what he claimed. The
> biggest drawback
> in this particular design however, was deemed to be
> the large cockpit
> that was not self-draining once it swamped. The
> water was coming in
> faster than going out - so the weight of the water
> in the cockpit
> plus the water in the ballest tanks and the force of
> the wind on the
> furled sail, caused the boat to roll over. The guy
> was sleeping in
> the cuddy and when he opened the hatch, it filled
> with water as well.
> (The boat was designed as a "coastal cruiser" and
> got hit with a
> thunderstorm while lying offshore to get away from
> the bugs and
> rocks.)
>
> At any rate, that convinced me to follow what Bolger
> recommends when
> it comes to seaworthiness - and that is - a boat
> that can recover
> from a knockdown on it's own.
>
> I live where the water is cold most of the year, and
> we get some
> pretty nasty thunderstorms.
>
> Cheers, Nels
>

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, john_fader wrote:

> Does anyone remember any discussion as to how large these sharpies
> must be (at a minimum, in both length and width)to allow standing
> headroom (6'2" in my case, 1.88m)??? I've looked at Cabin Clam Skiff
> (why didn't PCB name that "Saloon Launch"??? as John E. calls it :-)
> and wondered about it's potential for a "cheapish" Florida
> live-aboard.

The CCS looks a lot larger than it is. The cabin height is only about
150cm (5').


Sakari Aaltonen

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> Nels,
>> The design of a boat is a complicated process and
> requires more than just banning water ballast to make
> a design successful.  Lets not let those newbees
> reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
> will solve all their problems.

Wow - I didn't realize that anyone wanted to ban water ballest.

Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.

I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.

I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.

Cheers, Nels

Gee, Nels; it would seem obvious to the scientific mind that what you need
is something that meets all your needs at once, like foam ballast!  It'll
also work as flotation, too.

Y'know, I used to think I knew stuff about boats, but the things I've
learned in this group amaze me more every day!

;->

David Romasco



   _____

From: Nels [mailto:arvent@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 2:47 PM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast


--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> Nels,
>> The design of a boat is a complicated process and
> requires more than just banning water ballast to make
> a design successful.  Lets not let those newbees
> reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
> will solve all their problems.

Wow - I didn't realize that anyone wanted to ban water ballest.

Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.

I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.

I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.

Cheers, Nels



Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:  bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cb3mvkh/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075751220/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Def
ault?mqso=60178383&partid=4116730> click here

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1945638/rand=187714165>

   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Does anyone remember any discussion as to how large these sharpies
> must be (at a minimum, in both length and width)to allow standing
> headroom (6'2" in my case, 1.88m)??? I've looked at Cabin Clam Skiff
> (why didn't PCB name that "Saloon Launch"??? as John E. calls it :-)
> and wondered about it's potential for a "cheapish" Florida
> live-aboard.

I have thought about putting the clam skiff cabin and shoe on an
Idaho hull to get standing height. This would make the Idaho design
more appealing. The Idaho was designed for wheel chair camping and
standing height was not a requirement. It would be a "Long Cabin Clam
Skiff" or an "Updated Idaho" depending on which stern you used. It
would be for a day boat with more room and load capacity than the
skiff. The cabin could be lengthened and other things added. You
could tent over the whole thing in good weather and batten down in
the cabin to ride out bad. Five feet wide is still mighty narrow for
a liveaboard but OK for camping. Five feet wide is great for
trailering.
I guess you could add a foot to the width of Idaho and have a scaled
down Dakota (or long Tenn.) without the rocker.

Charles

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
> Gee, Nels; it would seem obvious to the scientific mind that what
you need
> is something that meets all your needs at once, like foam ballast!
It'll
> also work as flotation, too.
>
> Y'know, I used to think I knew stuff about boats, but the things
I've
> learned in this group amaze me more every day!
>
> ;->
>
> David Romasco

Me too!

I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
Very advanced for their time.

Also Chuck Leinweber has built a Michalak design with water ballest
tanks and loves it.

Lots of choices for everyone.

I plan to use water ballest and additional lead in LESTAT - in the
form of jugs of fresh water and lead acid batteries. As well as
additional floatation/ballest using an air mattress.

Cheers Nels