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

TarantulEeek!

Expand Messages
  • graeme19121984
    I ve been considering simple dory type hulls that may sail reasonably well, but remain good fast rowboats. I keep coming back to the slender Banks type sailing
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 22, 2006
      I've been considering simple dory type hulls that may sail
      reasonably well, but remain good fast rowboats. I keep coming back
      to the slender Banks type sailing outrigger bodyplan, which may have
      the potential so stand up to a large sailrig, with the outrigger(s)
      spaced for adequate oar clearance and fixed in position at least
      while on the water. (I've now noticed "Virus" on the web. A slender
      production dory of many variations including rowing/sailing/
      outrigger.)

      For the main hull something of Light Dory Type (LDT) proportions has
      flare that gives more inside room compared to a sharpie/canoe hull,
      and turns down slop and spray. The Light Dory Type hull is designed
      to move through the water unheeled (mostly!) so waterflow should not
      present the problems of the Tarantula hull after it was fitted with
      outriggers and unable to heel. However, I presume the LDT waterlines
      are optimised for human power, that the bottom rocker & etc. are
      just so, and am concerned that at the higher speeds possible under
      sail power, sub- and semi-planing, these waterlines may present
      problems of a similar degree to those of Tarantula, if not similar
      in nature.

      Enter Eeek! The recent subject matter here of rowing/sailing, box
      keels, cutwaters, Yamato, slender deep pointy stern dead flat bottom
      rule bending, & etc., has me wondering about the Eeek! Given that
      PCB&F have used a similar bottom and stern to that of Eeek!, on
      motor boats meant to remain unheeled and move at sub/semi-planing
      speeds, it should be ok for my upright sailing outrigged hull. But
      Bolger has said Eeek! was not much of a boat.

      Questions. 1)Was that due to Eeek!'s waterlines being compromised
      when heeled, or to an inability to stand up to sufficient sail to
      achieve the target speed range? 2)Was her Length to Beam ratio of
      5.7 too low, ie too fat? 3)Perhaps more slender with higher L/B
      would have been better, but the necessary displacement was
      unachievable in such a short hull? 4)Does displacement rise linearly
      with length if length is the only variable? And form stability
      (though not required in the outrigger)? 5)And very importantly, if
      the Eeek! Type can stand the sail, get up to the target speed and
      perform the rule bending at the higher speeds will it be a dog to
      row? 6)Will that tail and lack of rocker yeild too much wetted
      surface drag for human power at rowing speed? 7)That is, perhaps
      Eeek!'s performance at low paddling speed is why Bolger said she was
      not much of a boat?

      Back in the days when BWAOM was published Bolger said if he had to
      do Tarantula-tri again he would give it more rocker like Auckland
      Catamaran, but since then for relatively low powered hulls of rule
      bending attributes, including speed rules, he has used the Eeek!
      application.

      If the Eeek! Type (ET?)checks out even just tolerably, and PCB&F do
      use it increasingly in various rule bending applications, then it
      would be tremendous among other things for its benefits of
      simplicity of design and construction. 8)Was Mr Bolger distracting
      attention from a proprietry design secret in dismissing Eeek!? An ET
      row/sail outrigger may not perform at the high end of contemporary
      conventional multi designs, but the trade off, all things
      considered, may not be great.

      9)What do you reckon? (Yeh, I know - models and photos :))

      cheers
      Graeme
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.