It's a bit more effort, but I found that by contacting some local
tire stores I have been able to collect all the lead I need.  Look
for ones that do not sell batteries as well since the battery dealers
usually collect the wheel weights as well as the old batteries.  I
made friends with one and he provided info on several others in the
area.  I left a 5gallon bucket at each with my name and number on
them and make a trip to each once a week to collect the weights.

I easily collected the 500 pounds for my Superbrick and another 700
for my Winter Wren.  I melt them down into lead bricks first to get
rid of the clips and grease before using them in the boats.

Paul H.
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Rick Bedard <sctree@> wrote:
> > Watch the prices of lead containing things like car batteries
over
> > the next year... Doesn't look to me like the price will will go
> > down.
>
>
> The price has just about quadrupled in the past 18 months
> http://commodities.thefinancials.com/
>
> "... it's not a very liquid market and it doesn't take much buying
> to drive the price," said Michael Jansen, a strategist in London
for
> J.P. Morgan Securities.
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/19/bloomberg/bxcom.php
>
> "Lead — the leading performer this year—soared 15 percent, on
strong
> battery demand in China, ongoing production losses in Australia,
and
> sharply reduced exports from China."
>
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,c
>
ontentMDK:21148682~menuPK:2457607~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSi
> tePK:476883,00.html ( or get there from the World Bank Homepage
> http://www.worldbank.org/  Home > Data & Research > Prospects >
> Products > Commodity Markets Review )
>
>
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDAILYPROSPECTS/Resources/132403
> 7-1124814752790/CommodityMarketsReview-November2007.pdf
>
>
> "...Although copper is regarded as a price leader among base
metals,
> lead has stolen much of the limelight, as speculation of a 90K-100K
> tonne supply shortfall this year pushed lead up 32% in two months
to
> fresh record highs. Supply tightness should ease a little in CY08,
> but supply is still expected to be constrained. For this reason,
our
> price forecast for lead enjoys the biggest upgrade of all metals
for
> the next two years. Other base metals to enjoy a significant upward
> lift include tin and copper..."
> http://www.compareshares.com.au/aegis25.php
>
> Are all those batteries in China mostly for road transport vehicles
> in China?
>
> Fuel cost increase has ship charges doubling in the last year - not
> sure this affects lead very much, though it's added a lot to grain.
>
> Graeme
>

By the way, as to the purchase of the lead and the shipping, I think I paid
about $.55 per pound, to one of those ebay sellers who usually send very small
ingots, for bullet-makers, etc. The shipping was a good deal too, because
theUSPS will take anything that fits in one of their priority boxes and is under
something like 60 lbs, for $8 or $9 anywhere in the country. My mailman didn't
like the deal much, but my lead came in nine of these priority mail boxes. The
ingots had bevelled edges, but they fit together fairly tightly by alternating
top and bottom faces. I didn't want to shorten the oak pieces fore and aft of
the lead, so made them to plan, and added the additional lead I needed to come
up to specs above them, at each end. Actually, I filled the forward part of the
keel completely, so there is no free flooding there; and I used up a comparable
amount of the free flooding space aft. It's my impression that it would be a
mistake to settle for any less than the full design weight of lead, unless one
were really going to load the Micro heavily for cruising. I'll be using mine
lightly laden most of the time, and I'd like her to float somewhere near her
design waterline.

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

Hi Graeme - Thanks!

As far as I could tell, she did not go down by the stern when heeling. I
think her unique underbody shape provided enough aft floatation -
certainly more than many other double ended canoes.

The Eeek! design WAS stretched to a longer hull - maybe even twice. One
was the 23' Anhinga - details of which you can see in the Bolger
Cartoons groupsite. One was built, that I know of, back in 1989. I was
told that the  34' Proposed Economy Cruiser  (a sketch of which is in
the Eeek! chapter of "30 Odd Boats") was also built, in Seattle.

I don't know how these boats performed, but they were pretty narrow for
cruising boats.

As a multi, I believe that are many other hull shapes that would be
superior. I don't think one would need the extra aft volume in a
multihull - but I'm no naval architect!

Would I have another one? Sure, assuming I were in the same situation.
At the time, I wanted a boat just like that one - easy to construct,
versatile and unique. Nowadays, I would likely prefer to build a more
traditional looking lapstrake sailing canoe - but that's just me.

I feel that the only failing with the design was the need for ballast
(when sailing).  Lugging lead or a sandbag down to the water just cuts
down on the convenience factor of having a solo-canoe. Ballast was a
staple in sailing canoes of the 19th century (see W.P. Stephens), but
most modern designs don't call for it.

Dave

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> thanks for your tale. Very much. Eeek! looks as neat in your photo
> as in the book.
>
> A few queries for you:
>
> 1/ Did she go down any by the stern with progressive heeling?
>
> 2/ How do you think Eeek! would perform if stretched to, say, 16 to
> 20ft? And,
>
> 3/ as a multihull - tri, cat or outrigger?
>
> 4/ Would you have another one?
>
> Graeme
>
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" alias1719@ wrote:
> >
> > Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am -
> fascinated
> > by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
> > Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale
> of
> > one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
> > the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
> > only pic I have of her in the photo section....
>




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

"By the way, I don't know whether its
kosher to pinch someone elses colour scheme, but I'd love to copy
the boat in one of the storage files under Queensland Micro's, with
her tanbark sails, white bottom and decks, green sides.
Col"

Yes Col,

That boat you refer to was built by Ross Lillistone of Bayside Wooden
Boats up at Esk in QLD and I think that boat is in the Brisbane area.
  It is called Cricket, I think

  It does look good alright

Greg F

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Col" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
>
>
> Graeme,
>  Yes that was Johns Micro, nice bloke and a nice boat. I'm with you,
> buildings half (or more) the fun, and even though it will cost me
> more, the bills are spread out. (false economy I know).  I'm in no
> rush, I like tinkering downstairs when the time permits gradually
> moving towards the goal.  By the way, I don't know whether its
> kosher to pinch someone elses colour scheme, but I'd love to copy
> the boat in one of the storage files under Queensland Micro's, with
> her tanbark sails, white bottom and decks, green sides.
> Col
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Col" <cmoone11@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Graeme,
> > > Sounds like you've got all the expensive bits for a rebuild - a
> > hull
> > > without the keel can be built over a period of time with
> > relatively
> > > little outlay each month.  On the other hand, if the hull is
> solid
> > > its marvellous what a bit of epoxy and fibreglass can do.  A few
> > > strategically placed drill holes into the keel batten and other
> > > structural parts would soon reveal any rot, and then filled
> after.
> >
> > That's true Col, but maintenance doesn't seem as interesting as
> > building new, it's not as easy to warm to, but it could be the way
> > to go , but, but...
> >
> > >
> > > I've just resisted a tempting offer to buy a Micro located in
> > > Sydney.
> >
> > That wouild be John's, no? Very tempting indeed, and an awesome
> > effort to resist - there was/is a peturbation in the force felt as
> > far as here in Bolgerdom, just a fact.
> >
> > >
> > >Apart from the fact that I didn't have the cash, I really
> > > enjoy the building process and seeing the boat come together.
> And
> > > what would I have done with my bulkheads and mast?  I try to do
> a
> > > little every day on her - time isn't an issue. (I may end up
> with
> > > the record for the slowest build on this list)  Today I marked
> the
> > > notches in bulkheads C & D and the  aft frame piece on B ready
> to
> > > cut out.
> >
> > Way to go!
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>

I think Hume's was the class boat (first one built).


On Nov 22, 2007, at 10:38 PM, graeme19121984 wrote:

> Hi Howard,
>
> welcome aboard, and thanks for posting the photos of your Blueberry
> & etc.
>
> About your boat, Google tells me:
>
> According to Craig's list at the Cheap Pages the boat may have
> featured in SBJ #42(?) 4/89, and there's a note that it might have
> been the subject of a book also going by the title of "Blueberry"
> http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/boat/bolger_sbj.html
>
> There's a book on a Blueberry, recently republished, I think. Is it
> the one Craig listed?
> "Blueberry: A Boat of the Connecticut Shoreline" by David. D. Hume
> http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1194635418.html
> and I have a feeling that one is now yours - see the Amazon listing
> for the earlier '94 edition
> http://www.amazon.com/Blueberry-Connecticut-Shoreline-David-
> Hume/dp/1880158027
>
> Hmmm, I didn't know that - up to '96 CSD sold the plans
> http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1194635418.html
>
> Wow, Blueberry's got a website now, one from Montreal for sale
> http://clicformation.com/bolger/index.html
>
> Happycruising
> Graeme
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard" <prof_rice@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > I am new to this group and wanted to post that I am the new owner
> of
> > Blueberry. I have posted a new photo album with three photos
> entitled
> > "A Pocket Cruiser-Blueberry".
>
>
>



=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610





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

Hi Craig
So far I know of two. Mine and one in Canada.
Any idea of others have been built and where they might sail?
Thank you
Howard
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think Hume's was the class boat (first one built).
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 10:38 PM, graeme19121984 wrote:
>
> > Hi Howard,
> >
> > welcome aboard, and thanks for posting the photos of your Blueberry
> > & etc.
> >
> > About your boat, Google tells me:
> >
> > According to Craig's list at the Cheap Pages the boat may have
> > featured in SBJ #42(?) 4/89, and there's a note that it might have
> > been the subject of a book also going by the title of "Blueberry"
> > http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/boat/bolger_sbj.html
> >
> > There's a book on a Blueberry, recently republished, I think. Is it
> > the one Craig listed?
> > "Blueberry: A Boat of the Connecticut Shoreline" by David. D. Hume
> > http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1194635418.html
> > and I have a feeling that one is now yours - see the Amazon listing
> > for the earlier '94 edition
> > http://www.amazon.com/Blueberry-Connecticut-Shoreline-David-
> > Hume/dp/1880158027
> >
> > Hmmm, I didn't know that - up to '96 CSD sold the plans
> > http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1194635418.html
> >
> > Wow, Blueberry's got a website now, one from Montreal for sale
> > http://clicformation.com/bolger/index.html
> >
> > Happycruising
> > Graeme
> >
> > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard" <prof_rice@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello
> > > I am new to this group and wanted to post that I am the new owner
> > of
> > > Blueberry. I have posted a new photo album with three photos
> > entitled
> > > "A Pocket Cruiser-Blueberry".
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> === craig o'donnell
> dadadata@...
> Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Craig,

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
> "Eeek" was a test hull for Anhinga. Apparently both were
>unsuccessful enough that Bolger never tried the  hull form again.

Well, Bolger did say it was OK at the time, and he could reboard
with the specified ballast added. When PCB says something, like
anybody else I think, it has to be taken in context. Here, for a
particular purpose at a later time, he says Eeek! is not much of a
boat, but Peero is recommended. - Did CLC want lead melting as a
part of building? Did CLC specify double paddle? Bolger enjoyed
being able to recline in both. It appears he enjoyed the advantages
of both paddle styles, and the sailing ability of both. He did use
the EeeK! hull form again for Anhinga, so, as he said, it must have
proved alright. And currently Dave is saying the same.


>
> As I said, the "Peero" is his Take II on Eeek, being in his
>opinion a  better micro-sailer. (The rig he sketched is much
>like "Queen Mab").

Yes, but in his opinion EeeK! was a good *cruising* canoe... And he
knows what many think of lead melting. (The adding of outrigged, FRP-
encased, foam sponsons, like Gary Lepak did to a similar small
double ender this year, might go a long way towards compensating for
the downside of the tippiness - GL could use oars too, as he placed
rollicks on the sponsons.)

Graeme

Dave,

thanks for your answers. The bit about the heeling stern going
down... I'm sorry, I confused it with what I think may happen to the
Anhinga hull with water ballast.

"The  34' Proposed Economy Cruiser... Was also built" - You don't
say! Now this is news indeed. The Economy Seagoing Cruiser (ESC) is
kind of like the holy grail, or at least one of them in the
Bolgerverse, and not just to fans but to Bolger himself, I think.
So, the searching... the searching... one was built. This is great
news. I love the idea (extreme shallowness, easy build, economical
to build and cruise, etc) and looks of that boat. I wonder if anyone
in the group is from Seattle and can tell us more?

I bet there are better multi hull shapes than EeeK! too, but I doubt
any are possibly as effective for the simplicity. I thought that the
narrow hull might easily be accellerated to more than hull speed and
then the flat, pointed, aft bottom might easily get it up on the
plane - not exactly similar, but yet similar to the Farrier tri
vaka. Configured as a multi the EeeK! hull could stand up to enough
sail to provide the motive force. What do you think?

Graeme



--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" <alias1719@...> wrote:
>Hi Graeme - Thanks!
>As far as I could tell, she did not go down by the stern when
>heeling. I think her unique underbody shape provided enough aft
>floatation - certainly more than many other double ended canoes.
>The Eeek! design WAS stretched to a longer hull - maybe even twice.
>One was the 23' Anhinga - details of which you can see in the Bolger
>Cartoons groupsite. One was built, that I know of, back in 1989. I
>was told that the  34' Proposed Economy Cruiser  (a sketch of which
>is in the Eeek! chapter of "30 Odd Boats") was also built, in
>Seattle. I don't know how these boats performed, but they were
>pretty narrow for cruising boats.


> As a multi, I believe that are many other hull shapes that would be
> superior. I don't think one would need the extra aft volume in a
> multihull - but I'm no naval architect!
> Would I have another one? Sure, assuming I were in the same
>situation. At the time, I wanted a boat just like that one - easy
>to construct, versatile and unique. Nowadays, I would likely prefer
>to build a more traditional looking lapstrake sailing canoe - but
>that's just me. I feel that the only failing with the design was
>the need for ballast (when sailing).  Lugging lead or a sandbag
>down to the water just cuts down on the convenience factor of
>having a solo-canoe. Ballast was a staple in sailing canoes of the
>19th century (see W.P. Stephens), but most modern designs don't
>call for it.
>
> Dave
>

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
> Hmmm, I didn't know that - up to '96 CSD sold the plans
> http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1194635418.html

Ooops-a-daisy! Not that one, this one:

http://www.irbs.com/lists/live-aboard/9606/0067.html

cheers

Micro for free on Austin (TX) Craigslist.
Lot's of pictures, but it looks rough. Painted plywood with peeling
paint.
http://austin.craigslist.org/boa/488004554.html

Bill, in Ohio

In the last month lead has been slipping down as well as most
industry metals. Gold is over $800 but a little spendy for balest.
http://www.minersmanual.com/metalprices.html
I watch the market daily. With China getting hit so hard on lead
paint on exports there demand should come down . LOL as well as some
of there marketing dreams.

Jon

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Rick Bedard <sctree@> wrote:
> > Watch the prices of lead containing things like car batteries
over
> > the next year... Doesn't look to me like the price will will go
> > down.
>
>
> The price has just about quadrupled in the past 18 months
> http://commodities.thefinancials.com/
>
> "... it's not a very liquid market and it doesn't take much buying
> to drive the price," said Michael Jansen, a strategist in London
for
> J.P. Morgan Securities.
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/19/bloomberg/bxcom.php
>
> "Lead — the leading performer this year—soared 15 percent, on
strong
> battery demand in China, ongoing production losses in Australia,
and
> sharply reduced exports from China."
>
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,c
>
ontentMDK:21148682~menuPK:2457607~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSi
> tePK:476883,00.html ( or get there from the World Bank Homepage
> http://www.worldbank.org/  Home > Data & Research > Prospects >
> Products > Commodity Markets Review )
>
>
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDAILYPROSPECTS/Resources/132403
> 7-1124814752790/CommodityMarketsReview-November2007.pdf
>
>
> "...Although copper is regarded as a price leader among base
metals,
> lead has stolen much of the limelight, as speculation of a 90K-100K
> tonne supply shortfall this year pushed lead up 32% in two months
to
> fresh record highs. Supply tightness should ease a little in CY08,
> but supply is still expected to be constrained. For this reason,
our
> price forecast for lead enjoys the biggest upgrade of all metals
for
> the next two years. Other base metals to enjoy a significant upward
> lift include tin and copper..."
> http://www.compareshares.com.au/aegis25.php
>
> Are all those batteries in China mostly for road transport vehicles
> in China?
>
> Fuel cost increase has ship charges doubling in the last year - not
> sure this affects lead very much, though it's added a lot to grain.
>
> Graeme
>

Anhingha, for which I have the plans, is not built to the same
proportions as Eeek!.  It is a quite a bit wider, because it is
intended to be water ballasted, I think on the Eeek! Platform it
would be 30 inches rather than 24, something like that anyway.  I
built what I call Fat Eeek! which is the Anhingha proportions in the
Eeek! length.  It is ready to go in the water, and I live next to a
lake, but somehow over the years I have always been too busy to
finish the rig...

The concept seems to have been that the lower stern would allow more
ballast to be carried in this hull form.  What failed to be
appreciated until the exercise was tried was that when this hull
shape heels, the buoyancy in the stern is an overturning force, which
seems to somewhat negate the advantages.  When a hull of this form
heels to port, the added volume in the stern pulls up on starboard.
It was also hopped that the lower stern would help solve the problem
of running an engine in a double ender.

I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco. version
of this boat.  He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans for
$350.  That is very reasonable, but too much for me to purchase just
so as to complete the set.  Once one buys plans, there is no telling,
they may get built.  I like that idea, and think the Eco,. is a
striking concept.  It also comes from the period of his sharpie
design before they left the rails.  As with Pointer and Black
Skimmer, ballast once seemed to provide for cheap and interesting
designs, where subsequent efforts with water ballast have not been
well founded.  It's certainly an exciting thought that there could be
an Eco. that has been built.

I think this design is a poor departure point for a multihull.  It
might have some utility where extreme shallow draft is needed.  I has
often been said that Farrier designs plane.  I have heard that
questioned, and it may be true or not.  I have a hard time seeing how
it would be considered an advantage even if true.  A design that
planes needs a lot of energy to keep the hull aloft.  The multihull
advantage is that it need not plane to go fast.  Farrier is a
brilliant designer, and his earlier smaller boats did show the way to
building very small and cruisable boats.  He once sold plans for a
boat that was 18 feet, had 4 or 5 berths, and folded.  No longer
offered, but in Bolger terms that's where I see the bang for the
buck.  I have sketches for a design that does not try to achieve
anywhere near as much, but is lighter and sleeker, and cheaper to
build.  I may some day built her.

If you want to built a small multihull in ply, I recommend several
approaches.  Dory, as with Tremolino, the SC 28, and others; V, a
wide "flat" v as used by Bolger and Piver, in the 90-120 range.  This
provides easy configuration for beaching, and directional stability,
the 120 v is a little draggy, but gives a fat hull out of the water
for accommodations.  Vs don't have chine drag; Beyond that you get
into a multifaceted chine construction that these days is harder and
harder to sustain against the onslaught of improvements in the strip
process.

Another option is stressforming/torturing.  But in this size class
one would do well to pull that perennial yacht designer's trick which
is the extra long hull that is really (say) a 16 footer on a 20
footer's waterline.  If your design comes out as a "real" 20 footer,
then that is a whole other thing, and maybe not a good idea to have
tried in this method of construction.

I think these small mutis can be really successful in a format where
a person is willing to give a little to get a little.  If nothing
else, they end up expensive if one tries to cram too much into the
box.  I think the winning materials/construction (with the exception
of the stretched approach mentioned above) are probably strip
planking and stessformed amas if one is thinking tri.  On this size
of boat the below water hull that would need to be stripped is a
day's work, and stressformed amas are probably faster to build than
any other type, while high performance.

Does anyone have MAIB or other Bolger writeups on the 12m Diesel
Launch or Voluteer?  I have somehow misplaced the MAIB update on
Volunteer from a couple of years ago and am not aware of a writeup on
the launch.  If anyone has these articles and could photocopy them for
me, I'd be happy to reimburse your cost and provide a return envelope.

Thanks in advance,

Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Tri Robinson" <gzusinme@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, was wondering if I could get some advice from you guys with
> experience. I am looking to build a sailboat, I dont have any real
> experience but looking to get started. I originally was intending to
> order the weekender plans froms stevens projects. However I then saw


I don't personally put Stevensons on the same level as Bolger, and
others.  So I think you are moving in the right direction.

Boats are about what you want out of them.  The more you can narrow
the brief the better.  Micros are getting a little dated.  A lot has
changed in the last 20-30 years of boatbuilding, and I don't think the
bang for the buck is there today.  They are still the right answer for
someone, and they haven't changed from what they were, unlike some PB
designs since.  Built to current standards, there just isn't the same
bang for the buck.

Today, there really isn't as much reason to build a box as costly as
this one.  I would build, and have, many of the smaller box designs,
but I don't see the reason to configure a larger boat this way today.
When I started out building boats 30 years ago, so many tools were
either unthought of or extremely expensive.  Raw plywood was very
cheap, in good quality.  And the prefered sheathing for ply and even
strip boats at the time was fiberglass resin.  For example. a quality
General planer cost about 70% of a Volvo, in the mid 70s. now you can
pick one up for the cost of 2-4 fills of the gas tank.  Free online
design programs were not even on the horizon.  And every decade has
brought major changes.  Whether tackling traditional projects, like
planking, or modern designs, it's all so much easier, not to mention
the information revolution, that I really fail to see the practical
sideo of a Micro any longer.

Yes, I too would like more info on the 12m, low powered 12 knot diesel launch.

adventures_in_astrophotography <jon@...> wrote:          Does
anyone have MAIB or other Bolger writeups on the 12m Diesel
Launch or Voluteer? I have somehow misplaced the MAIB update on
Volunteer from a couple of years ago and am not aware of a writeup on
the launch. If anyone has these articles and could photocopy them for
me, I'd be happy to reimburse your cost and provide a return envelope.

Thanks in advance,

Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm






---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.

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

I will launch my Micro named Wave in the spring and have enjoyed
every minute of building a small cruiser that will do everything I
want it to as I cruise into my retirement a few years from now.I have
used okume mahogany and west epoxy. Both are easy to work with for an
amateur. A jig saw, some clamps and a radial arm saw to rip 1 x 6
spruce and you are good to go. Someone told me that the hardest part
of building the boat would be just getting started and I agree. I
have been looking at plans for 25 years and the Micro is the #1
choice for me.I just can't wait to get my MicroWave in the water.

Denis
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Tri Robinson" <gzusinme@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, was wondering if I could get some advice from you guys
with
> > experience. I am looking to build a sailboat, I dont have any
real
> > experience but looking to get started. I originally was intending
to
> > order the weekender plans froms stevens projects. However I then
saw
>
>
> I don't personally put Stevensons on the same level as Bolger, and
> others.  So I think you are moving in the right direction.
>
> Boats are about what you want out of them.  The more you can narrow
> the brief the better.  Micros are getting a little dated.  A lot
has
> changed in the last 20-30 years of boatbuilding, and I don't think
the
> bang for the buck is there today.  They are still the right answer
for
> someone, and they haven't changed from what they were, unlike some
PB
> designs since.  Built to current standards, there just isn't the
same
> bang for the buck.
>
> Today, there really isn't as much reason to build a box as costly
as
> this one.  I would build, and have, many of the smaller box
designs,
> but I don't see the reason to configure a larger boat this way
today.
> When I started out building boats 30 years ago, so many tools were
> either unthought of or extremely expensive.  Raw plywood was very
> cheap, in good quality.  And the prefered sheathing for ply and
even
> strip boats at the time was fiberglass resin.  For example. a
quality
> General planer cost about 70% of a Volvo, in the mid 70s. now you
can
> pick one up for the cost of 2-4 fills of the gas tank.  Free online
> design programs were not even on the horizon.  And every decade has
> brought major changes.  Whether tackling traditional projects, like
> planking, or modern designs, it's all so much easier, not to
mention
> the information revolution, that I really fail to see the practical
> sideo of a Micro any longer.
>

--
Hi Denis,

Couldn't agree with you more.  I plan to launch my Old Shoe early
next summer.  I feel that PCB's designs are still appealing to many
folks.  I'm building mine because I personally like the design and it
fits my needs perfectly.  Realizing that there are thousands of boat
designs out there...it just boils down to personal choice.. has to.

Best of luck to you on your forth-coming launch.

Regards,

Dennis

- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "meier.denis" <meier.denis@...> wrote:
>
> I will launch my Micro named Wave in the spring and have enjoyed
> every minute of building a small cruiser that will do everything I
> want it to as I cruise into my retirement a few years from now.I
have
> used okume mahogany and west epoxy. Both are easy to work with for
an
> amateur. A jig saw, some clamps and a radial arm saw to rip 1 x 6
> spruce and you are good to go. Someone told me that the hardest
part
> of building the boat would be just getting started and I agree. I
> have been looking at plans for 25 years and the Micro is the #1
> choice for me.I just can't wait to get my MicroWave in the water.
>
> Denis
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
> <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Tri Robinson" <gzusinme@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, was wondering if I could get some advice from you guys
> with
> > > experience. I am looking to build a sailboat, I dont have any
> real
> > > experience but looking to get started. I originally was
intending
> to
> > > order the weekender plans froms stevens projects. However I
then
> saw
> >
> >
> > I don't personally put Stevensons on the same level as Bolger,
and
> > others.  So I think you are moving in the right direction.
> >
> > Boats are about what you want out of them.  The more you can
narrow
> > the brief the better.  Micros are getting a little dated.  A lot
> has
> > changed in the last 20-30 years of boatbuilding, and I don't
think
> the
> > bang for the buck is there today.  They are still the right
answer
> for
> > someone, and they haven't changed from what they were, unlike
some
> PB
> > designs since.  Built to current standards, there just isn't the
> same
> > bang for the buck.
> >
> > Today, there really isn't as much reason to build a box as costly
> as
> > this one.  I would build, and have, many of the smaller box
> designs,
> > but I don't see the reason to configure a larger boat this way
> today.
> > When I started out building boats 30 years ago, so many tools
were
> > either unthought of or extremely expensive.  Raw plywood was very
> > cheap, in good quality.  And the prefered sheathing for ply and
> even
> > strip boats at the time was fiberglass resin.  For example. a
> quality
> > General planer cost about 70% of a Volvo, in the mid 70s. now you
> can
> > pick one up for the cost of 2-4 fills of the gas tank.  Free
online
> > design programs were not even on the horizon.  And every decade
has
> > brought major changes.  Whether tackling traditional projects,
like
> > planking, or modern designs, it's all so much easier, not to
> mention
> > the information revolution, that I really fail to see the
practical
> > sideo of a Micro any longer.
> >
>

I have always thought that mostly, if one wants to go sailing, one
should buy a boat. If one wants to build a boat, then one should build
a boat. If you average it out on an hourly basis, it works out much
cheaper than playing golf or even going to the movies.

I also think model building is a great idea, and if you take the time
to build a nice one in wood, it can make a great gift for the kid or
grandkid or whatever.

If I were going to build something like the Micro, I would be tempted
to steer more toward a Michalak Musicbox 2 or 3. It is essentially the
same boat, but is maybe more practical in some ways -- faster to rig,
lighter to transport because of the water ballast, less draft,
beachable flat bottom, etc.

As for experience, you don't need any boatbuilding experience to build
these boats, but it would help a lot if you have the basic woodworking
tools and know how to use them. If not, I would build a small canoe or
a dory or something simple to kind of get things figured out before
launching into a Micro or something similar.

Cheers, Brian





--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Tri Robinson" <gzusinme@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, was wondering if I could get some advice from you guys with
> > experience. I am looking to build a sailboat, I dont have any real
> > experience but looking to get started. I originally was intending to
> > order the weekender plans froms stevens projects. However I then saw
>
>
> I don't personally put Stevensons on the same level as Bolger, and
> others.  So I think you are moving in the right direction.
>
> Boats are about what you want out of them.  The more you can narrow
> the brief the better.  Micros are getting a little dated.  A lot has
> changed in the last 20-30 years of boatbuilding, and I don't think the
> bang for the buck is there today.  They are still the right answer for
> someone, and they haven't changed from what they were, unlike some PB
> designs since.  Built to current standards, there just isn't the same
> bang for the buck.
>
> Today, there really isn't as much reason to build a box as costly as
> this one.  I would build, and have, many of the smaller box designs,
> but I don't see the reason to configure a larger boat this way today.
> When I started out building boats 30 years ago, so many tools were
> either unthought of or extremely expensive.  Raw plywood was very
> cheap, in good quality.  And the prefered sheathing for ply and even
> strip boats at the time was fiberglass resin.  For example. a quality
> General planer cost about 70% of a Volvo, in the mid 70s. now you can
> pick one up for the cost of 2-4 fills of the gas tank.  Free online
> design programs were not even on the horizon.  And every decade has
> brought major changes.  Whether tackling traditional projects, like
> planking, or modern designs, it's all so much easier, not to mention
> the information revolution, that I really fail to see the practical
> sideo of a Micro any longer.
>

Hi group,
Never having built or seen a Bolger hatch before,I have to admit I'm
having trouble getting my head around the design in the Micro
plans.  I've searched the archives with no luck, and any advice
would be much appreciated.

My problem is how to form the slot for the two boards to slip into
at the entranceway.  I made the presumtion that the boards once in
place are flush with the ply on Bulkhead B. I see that some framing
needs to go on the aft end of bulkhead B to form the slot.  However
in the bulkhead plans the framing on the foward end of bulkhead B
seems to finish flush with the ply edge, and if thats the case it
wouldn't play a role in forming a slot.  Do you need to glue a strip
of wood onto the forward framing making it protrude from the ply to
match a protruding frame on the aft side?  I'm sure the answer is
simpler than I think and I'll kick myself when I find the answer! (I
failed plan reading 101).


Thanks,
Col

On Nov 29, 2007 2:19 PM, Col <cmoone11@...> wrote:

>  Hi group,
>  Never having built or seen a Bolger hatch before,I have to admit I'm
>  having trouble getting my head around the design in the Micro
>  plans. I've searched the archives with no luck, and any advice
>  would be much appreciated.

It is confusing I agree.  Have you also read note 54 of the building key?

I put a picture of the Le Stat companionway here  (credit is due to
whomever took that photo, it wasn't me,  but I forget who to thank.):

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2074783398&size=o

Be certain that the cut out for the hatch are absolutely parallel.

The front plate and rear plates of the hatch hold it in place and there
are notches cut out to ride over the ridge on the cabin sides.

I think I recall screwing on a 3/4X3/4 rail for the notches to ride
on.

I wound up putting brass strips for the hatch to ride on as it was a
little sticky.  that seemed to solve it.

There is something in Chapelle's on this.

Bear in mind this was several years ago, so my memory is a tad hazy.

David Jost

Thanks David,
The fog is slowly lifting.  I'm sure when I'm up to that stage and
have the problem in front of me it will see a lot clearer.
Col

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Be certain that the cut out for the hatch are absolutely parallel.
>
> The front plate and rear plates of the hatch hold it in place and
there
> are notches cut out to ride over the ridge on the cabin sides.
>
> I think I recall screwing on a 3/4X3/4 rail for the notches to
ride
> on.
>
> I wound up putting brass strips for the hatch to ride on as it was
a
> little sticky.  that seemed to solve it.
>
> There is something in Chapelle's on this.
>
> Bear in mind this was several years ago, so my memory is a tad
hazy.
>
> David Jost
>

That's Peter Lenihan's boat so probably Peter took the pic.

Bryant

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> I put a picture of the Le Stat companionway here  (credit is due to
> whomever took that photo, it wasn't me,  but I forget who to thank.):
>
> http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2074783398&size=o
>

Hi Thomas,

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
> I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco.
version
> of this boat.  He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans
for
> $350.


Seems high. Was there more design work still to do?


>It's certainly an exciting thought that there could be
> an Eco. that has been built.

Isn't it just?


> I think this design is a poor departure point for a multihull.  It
> might have some utility where extreme shallow draft is needed.  I
has
> often been said that Farrier designs plane.  I have heard that
> questioned, and it may be true or not.  I have a hard time seeing
>how it would be considered an advantage even if true.

Well, the slenderness of multis at the WL allows them  high S/L, but
denies them much accomodation room. The beamier hull has the room
but not the high S/L, but if it can "plane" then it can still be
fast. A lot of the "lift" may come from being jacked up on the
slender lee ama.

Graeme

I'm interested in these comments about Micro not necessarily being up to date or
practical. I have had two Drascombes, two Birdwatchers, and a Dovekie, and
recently completed a Micro somebody else had built and used with out keel or
sailiing rig. It has endeared itself to me in the little use I could make of it
before the end of the sailing season here (Adirondacks), and I tend to think
it's going to prove my favorite of all these, because it packs more space and is
more comfortable. Once I got the trailer right for that new ballast keel, so
that the boat became as easy to launch and retrieve as a Birdwatcher (almost) I
began to think that a shallow-keel keelboat wasn't a bad thing at all. And for
the inexperienced sailow, who may not delight in the liveliness of, say, a
Birdwatcher with the Solent sloop rig, or the enclosed sailing position of same,
Micro would be very steady and reassuring. Doesn't seem in any way outdone by
more recent developments in plywood construction, to me.

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

For me, the hardest thing about the companionway plans for the Micro was the
after ends of the hatch-rails. They don't seem to have any lateral support, and
I wasn't sure where to end them, and how to trap the sompanionway slides in at
the top. Took a little drawing and thinking and studying of the plans but I
think I got it right, or adequately near.
The "slot" for the slides, which you refer to, was not built according to plans
on my hull, and I decided to cope with it the way it was. On a new boat, I'd do
it like the plans. Don't they show the bulkhead itself as the inner frame of the
slot? So that the slides lie outside, or aft, of the bulkhead, and go in
rabbetted frame-pieces? However you do the slots, be sure to carry the
hatch-rails aft as far as necessary to cover the edges of the slides. Tricky.

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

On Nov 30, 2007 9:07 AM, mason smith <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in these comments about Micro not necessarily being up to
> date or practical.

To say the obvious, it all depends!

Speaking personally, my Micro was not at all practical siting on a
trailer in my driveway, and then became exceedingly practical the
moment I got a coveted marina berth walking distance from my office in
downtown San Francisco.  Ditto for lots of other dualities; not
practical for cross oceans, but plenty practical for local sailing,
etc..

All these discussions must start with the question:  What kind of
boating to you have in mind?

Thanks Mason,
If "the slides lie outside, or aft, of the bulkhead, and go in
rabbetted frame-pieces?", I guess that means the slides don't finish
flush with the ply in the bulkhead?

Thanks for the tips re the hatch rails, I know one thing, nothing will
be glued until all is working!

Col

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> For me, the hardest thing about the companionway plans for the Micro
was the after ends of the hatch-rails. They don't seem to have any
lateral support, and I wasn't sure where to end them, and how to trap
the sompanionway slides in at the top. Took a little drawing and
thinking and studying of the plans but I think I got it right, or
adequately near.
> The "slot" for the slides, which you refer to, was not built
according to plans on my hull, and I decided to cope with it the way
it was. On a new boat, I'd do it like the plans. Don't they show the
bulkhead itself as the inner frame of the slot? So that the slides lie
outside, or aft, of the bulkhead, and go in rabbetted frame-pieces?
However you do the slots, be sure to carry the hatch-rails aft as far
as necessary to cover the edges of the slides. Tricky.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Group,
Should be right now, found some good closeups in Golger 5
photos "Applecross".
Cheers,
Col

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> For me, the hardest thing about the companionway plans for the Micro
was the after ends of the hatch-rails. They don't seem to have any
lateral support, and I wasn't sure where to end them, and how to trap
the sompanionway slides in at the top. Took a little drawing and
thinking and studying of the plans but I think I got it right, or
adequately near.
> The "slot" for the slides, which you refer to, was not built
according to plans on my hull, and I decided to cope with it the way
it was. On a new boat, I'd do it like the plans. Don't they show the
bulkhead itself as the inner frame of the slot? So that the slides lie
outside, or aft, of the bulkhead, and go in rabbetted frame-pieces?
However you do the slots, be sure to carry the hatch-rails aft as far
as necessary to cover the edges of the slides. Tricky.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>