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

[bolger] Re: sharpie stability/recovery

Expand Messages
  • ed haile
    David, Another aspect of all this, namely high freeboard. I had long objected to high sided boats as being such for the sake of too much downstairs at the
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      David,

      Another aspect of all this, namely high freeboard. I had long objected
      to high sided boats as being such for the sake of too much "downstairs"
      at the cost of excessive windage topside. A look at the oldtime
      galleons and it's obvious they were exclusively downwind sailers. But
      then something struck me in the Bolger boats. Look at the X-section of
      a box boat. It's just about square. That means that windage (despite
      the high sides) does not substantially increase or diminish with heel.
      What's more, a square section (vertical sides) becomes more streamlined
      when it heels (angled side facing the wind). Now look at your standard
      dinghy, fin keel yacht. On an even keel most of them are very low. But
      when they heel they throw up that ole weather rail and effectively have
      the same windage as one of your box boats, if not more, and, since you
      can see underneath, are much less streamlined.

      Ever notice how in yacht photos you almost never see a picture of a
      heeling yacht taken from windward.

      Hull windage is an advantage downwind, precisely where standard brands
      have the least, riding on an even keel. Windage is a disadvantage
      upwind, precisely where standard brands develop it when they heel. So,
      I became convinced that high freeboard was not a bad idea from a
      windage standpoint, and from there to Bolger's statement that shallow
      draft requires high freeboard.

      To say nothing of rigging windage.

      I am not yacht designer, and I admit in my lifetime on the water in
      boats I have learned next to nothing. The above simply reasons from
      facts & lines on paper. On the other hand, my Martha Jane pretty much
      bears it all out.

      Ed Haile
    • peter lenihan
      Hello Ed, I never quite saw it that way but it sure does make a whole lot of sense,thanks!Now I have a wonderful arguement to give to all of my infidel friends
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Ed,
        I never quite saw it that way but it sure does make a whole lot of sense,thanks!Now I have a wonderful arguement to give to all of my infidel friends without having to take them out for a sail on my Micro.
        Despite the high sides of my Micro,I have never felt blown sideways since that lovely long keel just keeps on biting and biting long after the centerboarders and finkeelers have blown out of range!
        Regards
        Peter Lenihan


        --- ed haile <bolger@egroups.com> wrote:
        >David,
        >
        >Another aspect of all this, namely high freeboard. I had long objected
        >to high sided boats as being such for the sake of too much "downstairs"
        >at the cost of excessive windage topside. A look at the oldtime
        >galleons and it's obvious they were exclusively downwind sailers. But
        >then something struck me in the Bolger boats. Look at the X-section of
        >a box boat. It's just about square. That means that windage (despite
        >the high sides) does not substantially increase or diminish with heel.
        >What's more, a square section (vertical sides) becomes more streamlined
        >when it heels (angled side facing the wind). Now look at your standard
        >dinghy, fin keel yacht. On an even keel most of them are very low. But
        >when they heel they throw up that ole weather rail and effectively have
        >the same windage as one of your box boats, if not more, and, since you
        >can see underneath, are much less streamlined.
        >
        >Ever notice how in yacht photos you almost never see a picture of a
        >heeling yacht taken from windward.
        >
        >Hull windage is an advantage downwind, precisely where standard brands
        >have the least, riding on an even keel. Windage is a disadvantage
        >upwind, precisely where standard brands develop it when they heel. So,
        >I became convinced that high freeboard was not a bad idea from a
        >windage standpoint, and from there to Bolger's statement that shallow
        >draft requires high freeboard.
        >
        >To say nothing of rigging windage.
        >
        >I am not yacht designer, and I admit in my lifetime on the water in
        >boats I have learned next to nothing. The above simply reasons from
        >facts & lines on paper. On the other hand, my Martha Jane pretty much
        >bears it all out.
        >
        >Ed Haile
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as
        >0.0% Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no
        >hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
        >you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
        >http://click.egroups.com/1/974/5/_/3457/_/949422898/
        >
        >-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
        >-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1

        _____________________________________________________________
        the BoatBuilding.Community http://boatbuilding.com/
        the Internet boatbuilding, design and repair resource
      • David Ryan
        FBBB -- I m glad I asked. My understanding continues to grow. A couple of thoughts/questions: 1) As I said before, I am convinced that *most* boats are
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          FBBB --

          I'm glad I asked. My understanding continues to grow.

          A couple of thoughts/questions:

          1) As I said before, I am convinced that *most* boats are designed
          with salability, not sailabilitly as their primary design
          consideration. I think what has impressed my most about BWAOM is that
          PCB is willing to realistically consider the way a boat will actually
          be used. His comment about LM spending more time in port than in
          ocean crossing, and then the resulting design really spoke to me. On
          the other hand, since most boats spend most of their time tied up,
          maybe a imitation offshore racer sponsors (that you don't actually
          sail) sponsors more satisfying fantasies than a big Bolger box (that
          you don't actually sail.) People sure get a big kick out of driving
          SUVs will never see a dirt trail.

          2) Tacking: Given similiar waterlines/rocker, is a narrower boat
          harder to tack? Or is it simply that longer boats are harder to turn?
          And besides, how often do you tack your LM on a trip from France to
          Jamaica?

          3) Multi-masts/Aero efficiency. As I understand it, multiple masts
          are an answer to the practical limits of mast height, i.e. clippers
          couldn't got as high as they wanted, so they went wide. Is this a
          correct understanding? If it isn't, what is correct. If it is, where
          are the practical lower limits (of hull size) of many small masts vs.
          one big one?

          What I am envisioning is a very long, very lean cruiser. She'd have
          less sail, less beam, and more waterline. Doesn't tack very well? Who
          cares, I'm on a beam reach for the next 1500 miles! No deep heavy
          keel? If I can't get the nose into the wind and a sea anchor out,
          I'll ride out the blow on my side (like Kerby's timber carrying
          schooner,) confident my topsides will keep my from going any further.

          Has Bolger or anyone else designed such a beast? If so, what are her
          strengths? faults?

          YIBB,


          David Ryan
          Minister of Information and Culture
          Crumbling Empire Productions
          (212) 247-0296
        • ed haile
          ... I think the issue here is maneuverability, something you don t give up lightly. ... The limit is sail size vs crew. Not mast height. Clippers had masts
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            > 2) Tacking: how often do you tack your LM on a trip from France to
            > Jamaica?

            I think the issue here is maneuverability, something you don't give up
            lightly.

            >
            > 3) Multi-masts/Aero efficiency. As I understand it, multiple masts
            > are an answer to the practical limits of mast height, i.e. clippers
            > couldn't got as high as they wanted, so they went wide. Is this a
            > correct understanding? If it isn't, what is correct. If it is, where
            > are the practical lower limits (of hull size) of many small masts vs.
            > one big one?

            The limit is sail size vs crew. Not mast height. Clippers had masts
            plenty high. But compare them to what went before and you see much
            taller masts together with much smaller sails. They furled more than
            they reefed and some prefer that on our-size boats. I think the Jochems
            schooner has a lot of sails for an under-25 footer. Some might think
            the main on a Loose Moose is a monster.

            >
            > What I am envisioning is a very long, very lean cruiser. She'd have
            > less sail, less beam, and more waterline. Doesn't tack very well? Who
            > cares, I'm on a beam reach for the next 1500 miles! No deep heavy
            > keel? If I can't get the nose into the wind and a sea anchor out,
            > I'll ride out the blow on my side (like Kerby's timber carrying
            > schooner,) confident my topsides will keep my from going any further.

            You might consider comfort important too, after a couple of blows. But
            maneuverability.

            >
            > Has Bolger or anyone else designed such a beast? If so, what are her
            > strengths? faults?
            >
            > YIBB,

            The very question I put to PCB years ago: how about a long low-rig
            sailing canoe? He referred me to the folding schooner. If he has
            designed a proa since then, he might now mention that.

            > David Ryan
            > Minister of Information and Culture
            > Crumbling Empire Productions
            > (212) 247-0296
          • Wmrpage@aol.com
            How about this concept? Sail power is only required for those long hauls from Bermuda to the Azores, Canaries to Carribean - all down-hill sailing. Why use a
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              How about this concept? Sail power is only required for those long hauls from
              Bermuda to the Azores, Canaries to Carribean - all down-hill sailing. Why use
              a conventional rig, requiring a substantial righting moment (ballast or beam
              = expense), if there was an alternative? My thought is of a reasonably long,
              narrow, lightly balanced "box" suitable for low-powered internal combustion
              engine operation in coastal waters, inland waters and canals, just
              sufficiently ballasted for self-righting, with hatches amidship, etc. for
              off-shore survivability. For the ocean crossings, one would use some form of
              traction kites. Thrust from the kite could be taken at the rail by snatch
              blocks. ( very low c.e. = low stability requirement for thrust developed).
              Sail area ( I get the impression that projecting adequate non-chafing
              downwind sail area in the Trades can be a problem with conventional boats)
              would be independent of mast dimensions (low windage, low cost, low clearance
              in canals). My perusal of traction kiting websites (e.g.
              DaveCulpSpeedSailing) hasn't done much to dispel my ignorance of how such
              kites are deployed and managed, but it does seem to me that they could
              develop as much power as one could desire on courses up to at least a broad
              reach with minimal heeling force. A buttoned-up hull of "Tennessee" or
              "Wyoming" type dimensions (provided with some appendage to provide a suitable
              CLR) might be one hell of a downwind sled.

              Bill Page in the land of HARD water (MN)
            • tjfatchen@ace.net.au
              BO Another aspect of all this, namely high freeboard. I had long objected BO to high sided boats as being such for the sake of too much downstairs BO at the
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 11 8:50 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                BO>Another aspect of all this, namely high freeboard. I had long objected
                BO>to high sided boats as being such for the sake of too much "downstairs"
                BO>at the cost of excessive windage topside.
                <snip>
                BO>I became convinced that high freeboard was not a bad idea from a
                BO>windage standpoint, and from there to Bolger's statement that shallow
                BO>draft requires high freeboard.

                BO>Ed Haile

                I was originally alarmed at the windage possibilities of the AS29 hull,
                particularly given the necessity to get out of tight and narrow marinas
                (and back in) at dead slow speeds with vicious crosswinds. We did have
                windage problems, in particular the bow falling off, but all to do with
                the windage of the mainmast (which is quite respectable). The hull
                itself, with boards down, is close to neutral.

                Now, if they'd allow us to sail in and out of marina, we wouldnt have
                any trouble at all....

                Tim & Lady Kate
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.