67828Re: [bolger] Re: Logical leap to multihulls? (was SketchUp Chebacco)
- May 15, 2012Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.
Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:
> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.
> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....
A fool and his money are soon elected. (Will Rogers)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>