Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Flat bottom vs. Multi chine (Jukebox 3 vs. Picara)

Expand Messages
  • creditscorenz
    Now we re getting back to discussing Jim s boats. Thanks, John! To rephrase my original question, I was trying to establish for those Michalak builders out
    Message 1 of 24 , May 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Now we're getting back to discussing Jim's boats. Thanks, John!

      To rephrase my original question, I was trying to establish for those Michalak builders out there who've built both, are the multichine boats really worth it? It seems from this response that for inshore use the multichiners are no better and since none of Jim's designs are mean't to be taken offshore, I'm left with the impression that flatties are better, due to their increased volume and faster build.

      Which leads me to my next question. If you were looking for a shoal draft Michalak that could sleep four people comfortably in it's cabin, you have two choices... 26ft Viola flattie or 32ft Cormorant multichine. That's a lot of extra length just for the supposed multichine advantage. The Viola's dimensions indicate it could be containerised too.

      > The original question had to do with seaworthiness of flat bottomed boatsto
      > compared to Michalak's 5 panel "chined" boats. In my experience, both are
      > adequately seaworthy for sailing in sheltered waters and light to moderate
      > wind. Both will pound in certain conditions unless you choose a design with
      > an extended bow (what Michalak calls a "through the water bow"). Unless you
      > are planning on going off shore, any of his designs will do well. Flat
      > bottomed boats have more "floor space". If you are sitting on the bottom, a
      > flat bottomed boat is more comfortable. If the boat has side benches, either
      > type is comfortable. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.(Popeye)
    • Andres Espino
      I emailed Jim about his Viola design and asked about Musicbox.  He replied that if I stretched a Musicbox, I would probably end up with something very much
      Message 2 of 24 , May 7, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I emailed Jim about his Viola design and asked about Musicbox.  He replied that if I stretched a Musicbox, I would probably end up with something very much like the Viola 22. 

        So I suppose the bow transom of the Musicbox2 would work equally well on a Viola.. Guess what you get?  Almost an exact copy of Bolger's Martha Jane except wiith steel rod ballast instead of water ballast.. saves building those water ballast tanks too.

        So n your look at Jim's plans do some comparisons with Musicbox and Viola.  I even printed the jpg pics out and made them same size to compare the lines between thenm and comparing with Bolger's boats.

        As JM says... "Musicbox3 is about the same size as
        the Bolger Micro and is clearly derived from it.
        I've
        sailed on a couple of Micros. Amazing boat in a
        lot of
        ways, especially in the amount of room inside a
        15' boat.
        The volume is the result of a 6' wide beam and
        flat bottom."

        Now just as Bolger stretched and made a "Long Micro"  I see no reason why not a "Long Musicbox".  Viola doesnt mention a tabernacle and swing down mast, but Musicbox clearly has one as shown in the photo of Musicbox2.  A Tabernacle would make hauling Viola easy and a Bow Transom easy for reboarding.

        Now Bolger made an enclosed cabin for Micro and Long Micro which he called the "Navigator"  I think either Musicbox or Viola could sport a similar long cabin too.  They are awfully similar in design.

        Aren't the "what ifs" interesting?

        Andrew



        --- On Fri, 5/7/10, creditscorenz <creditscorenz@...> wrote:

        From: creditscorenz <creditscorenz@...>
        Subject: [Michalak] Re: Flat bottom vs. Multi chine (Jukebox 3 vs. Picara)
        To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 9:25 PM







         













        Now we're getting back to discussing Jim's boats. Thanks, John!



        To rephrase my original question, I was trying to establish for those Michalak builders out there who've built both, are the multichine boats really worth it? It seems from this response that for inshore use the multichiners are no better and since none of Jim's designs are mean't to be taken offshore, I'm left with the impression that flatties are better, due to their increased volume and faster build.



        Which leads me to my next question. If you were looking for a shoal draft Michalak that could sleep four people comfortably in it's cabin, you have two choices... 26ft Viola flattie or 32ft Cormorant multichine. That's a lot of extra length just for the supposed multichine advantage. The Viola's dimensions indicate it could be containerised too.



        > The original question had to do with seaworthiness of flat bottomed boatsto

        > compared to Michalak's 5 panel "chined" boats. In my experience, both are

        > adequately seaworthy for sailing in sheltered waters and light to moderate

        > wind. Both will pound in certain conditions unless you choose a design with

        > an extended bow (what Michalak calls a "through the water bow"). Unless you

        > are planning on going off shore, any of his designs will do well. Flat

        > bottomed boats have more "floor space". If you are sitting on the bottom, a

        > flat bottomed boat is more comfortable. If the boat has side benches, either

        > type is comfortable. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.(Popeye)

























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • creditscorenz
        I don t have Viola plans, but I m pretty sure the mast is mounted on a tabernacle. Perhaps there is not enough room with the closed bow stem. If not then it
        Message 3 of 24 , May 9, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't have Viola plans, but I'm pretty sure the mast is mounted on a tabernacle. Perhaps there is not enough room with the closed bow stem. If not then it might use a mast partner that you can slide the mast through at an angle while standing on the deck beams. Bolger used this method on Wish II, AS19 and Breakdown Schooner as well as others I probably don't know of. Hopefully someone on this list who does have the plans can confirm this.

          Andres, you're contemplating a lot of changes to Jim's designs here. Is that wise?

          --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, Andres Espino <ima_very_cool_cowboy@...> wrote:
          >
          >Viola doesnt mention a tabernacle and swing down mast, but Musicbox >clearly has one as shown in the photo of Musicbox2.  A Tabernacle >would make hauling Viola easy and a Bow Transom easy for reboarding.
        • simonfbroad
          ... Or you have Caprice at 25ft or Caroline at 18ft both as multichine ? Though Caroline is a birdwatcher type cabin.
          Message 4 of 24 , May 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "creditscorenz" <creditscorenz@...> wrote:
            >
            > Which leads me to my next question. If you were looking for a shoal
            > draft Michalak that could sleep four people comfortably in it's
            > cabin, you have two choices... 26ft Viola flattie or 32ft Cormorant
            > multichine.
            >

            Or you have Caprice at 25ft or Caroline at 18ft both as multichine ?
            Though Caroline is a birdwatcher type cabin.
          • creditscorenz
            And Caprice and Caroline can sleep four people comfortably in their cabins? I don t think so! I have yet to see any monohull less than 26 ft long claiming to
            Message 5 of 24 , May 11, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              And Caprice and Caroline can sleep four people comfortably in their cabins? I don't think so! I have yet to see any monohull less than 26 ft long claiming to have four berths that doesn't compromise the rest of the cabin space somehow, either through sharing a cramped V berth or perhaps the toilet or the galley encroach on their sleeping arrangements.

              --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "simonfbroad" <simonfbroad@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "creditscorenz" <creditscorenz@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Which leads me to my next question. If you were looking for a shoal
              > > draft Michalak that could sleep four people comfortably in it's
              > > cabin, you have two choices... 26ft Viola flattie or 32ft Cormorant
              > > multichine.
              > >
              >
              > Or you have Caprice at 25ft or Caroline at 18ft both as multichine ?
              > Though Caroline is a birdwatcher type cabin.
              >
            • John and Kathy Trussell
              Don t forget Jewelbox. _____ From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of simonfbroad Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:49 AM To:
              Message 6 of 24 , May 11, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Don't forget Jewelbox.



                _____

                From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of simonfbroad
                Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:49 AM
                To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [Michalak] Re: Flat bottom vs. Multi chine (Jukebox 3 vs. Picara)







                --- In Michalak@yahoogroup <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com> s.com,
                "creditscorenz" <creditscorenz@...> wrote:
                >
                > Which leads me to my next question. If you were looking for a shoal
                > draft Michalak that could sleep four people comfortably in it's
                > cabin, you have two choices... 26ft Viola flattie or 32ft Cormorant
                > multichine.
                >

                Or you have Caprice at 25ft or Caroline at 18ft both as multichine ?
                Though Caroline is a birdwatcher type cabin.





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • graeme19121984
                WISH II 19.5ft. Bolger was intent on meeting those requirements. He thought it less than perfect in other ways. Graeme ... SNIP I have yet to see any monohull
                Message 7 of 24 , May 13, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  WISH II 19.5ft. Bolger was intent on meeting those requirements. He thought it less than perfect in other ways.

                  Graeme

                  --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "creditscorenz" <creditscorenz@...> wrote:

                  SNIP
                  I have yet to see any monohull less than 26 ft long claiming to have four berths that doesn't compromise the rest of the cabin space somehow, either through sharing a cramped V berth or perhaps the toilet or the galley encroach on their sleeping arrangements.
                • graeme19121984
                  Talking of pounding and garveys becoming something else entirely functionally, Bolger said about his (sharpie) box keels: The origin of the concept was an
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 14, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Talking of pounding and garveys becoming something else entirely functionally, Bolger said about his (sharpie) box keels: "The origin of the concept was an attempt to do something about the plowing, skidding and air ingestion of a garvey by adding buoyancy under the garvey's toboggan bow." (BWAOM, ch. 54, Microtrawler)

                    Oh, garveys had/have very pronounced flare. Easily as much as banks dories, probably more, though not very obvious because of the lower freeboard. The scow's more likely plumb sided.

                    Graeme

                    --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell" <jtrussell2@...> wrote:

                    snip

                    > When in doubt, I refer to Chapelle's American Small Sailing Craft .
                    > Chapelle describes garveys as being either flat bottomed or, as a later
                    > development, v-bottomed. Boats of this general type are also known as jon
                    > (or John) boats, buttheads or sampans(Pete Culler), or "Yankee
                    > drownders"(Robb White). Chapelle groups his description of garveys with
                    > scows which, with the development of inland racing scows have become
                    > something else entirely-functionally the equivalent of a catamaran flying a
                    > hull.

                    snip

                    > A San Francisco Pelican was sometimes described as a "sampan type" combining
                    > the flare of a dory with a wide flat bottom.
                    >

                    snip

                    > The original question had to do with seaworthiness of flat bottomed boats
                    > compared to Michalak's 5 panel "chined" boats. In my experience, both are
                    > adequately seaworthy for sailing in sheltered waters and light to moderate
                    > wind. Both will pound in certain conditions unless you choose a design with
                    > an extended bow (what Michalak calls a "through the water bow"). Unless you
                    > are planning on going off shore, any of his designs will do well. Flat
                    > bottomed boats have more "floor space". If you are sitting on the bottom, a
                    > flat bottomed boat is more comfortable. If the boat has side benches, either
                    > type is comfortable. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.(Popeye)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > JohnT
                  • Chris Crandall
                    ... Too true. There s a good example in Harry Sucher s Simplified Boatbuilding: The Flat-Bottom Boat .
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 15, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Oh, garveys had/have very pronounced flare. Easily as much as banks
                      > dories, probably more, though not very obvious because of the lower
                      > freeboard. The scow's more likely plumb sided.
                      >

                      Too true. There's a good example in Harry Sucher's "Simplified
                      Boatbuilding: The Flat-Bottom Boat".
                    • graeme19121984
                      I wonder if Jim ll ever draw a garvey? Sneakerbox, Deansbox, are close... the Campjon bow is a bit more garvey like, but the toboggan bow.... ahhh... nice.
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I wonder if Jim'll ever draw a garvey? Sneakerbox, Deansbox, are close... the Campjon bow is a bit more garvey like, but the toboggan bow.... ahhh... nice. Perhaps an acquired taste? The way the line defining the junction of sides, bottom, and deck curves and... curves. I think the toboggan bow allows a longer waterline; a flatter, faster sailing chine curve; and greater displacement in the bow quarter for more stability, sail carrying power, and speed. Then again the Bolger type chine carried through to be raised well above water at the bow (like onSB & DB above) may get there by building the simple shape only on a longer boat?

                        I wonder if Jim wouldn't be averse to taking a look at Thomas Firth Jones' garvey design opus. I believe TFJ didn't do plans for most of his over the years which were for himself, or built one-off for private sale, but he gives many clues in his related articles, cartoons, and some photos. He has experience based opinions on them most persuasive. Clearly, Chapelle also had a positive opinion of the garvey. Blow public opinion concerned with "proper" boat looks - if it's a good boat, it's a good boat!

                        Graeme

                        --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Oh, garveys had/have very pronounced flare. Easily as much as banks
                        > > dories, probably more, though not very obvious because of the lower
                        > > freeboard. The scow's more likely plumb sided.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Too true. There's a good example in Harry Sucher's "Simplified
                        > Boatbuilding: The Flat-Bottom Boat".
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.