[bolger] Re: sharpie stability/recovery
- 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
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
Minister of Information and Culture
Crumbling Empire Productions
> 2) Tacking: how often do you tack your LM on a trip from France toI think the issue here is maneuverability, something you don't give up
>The limit is sail size vs crew. Not mast height. Clippers had masts
> 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?
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.
>You might consider comfort important too, after a couple of blows. But
> 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.
>The very question I put to PCB years ago: how about a long low-rig
> Has Bolger or anyone else designed such a beast? If so, what are her
> strengths? faults?
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
- 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)
- 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.
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.
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