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

67744Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Expand Messages
  • philbolger@comcast.net
    May 1 11:43 AM
      So you have your eyes on # 649 "B-31" ?
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:33 PM
      Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

       

      Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.


      Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes.  For these flatter and wider serve well.

      However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.

      In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades.  Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.

      Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.

      Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.

      Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
      Stefan

      "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand."    -anonymous






      Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:

       

      Stefan,

      I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.

      Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!

      Keep smiling!

      John

      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
      >
      > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
      >
      > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
      >
      > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
      >
      > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
      >
      > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
      >
      > All the Best,
      > Stefan
      >
      > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
      >
      > Stefan Topolski MD
      > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
      > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
      > Founder and Director of
      > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
      > 1105 Mohawk Trail
      > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
      >
      > http://www.cottagemed.org
      >
      >
      >


    • Show all 26 messages in this topic